nate's+Habits,+Neuroses,+Talents


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

Articulating questions is tough for me depending on who my audience is. If I don't know my audience I have to make assumptions about what they know or how they feel, which is fine if the mode of articulation is verbal dialogue because I can //ask// them. But on paper that's not possible.


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

I think I hop around more than stick. Sometimes when I run into an obstacle that seems impassable I will stop and just do something else. Some of those times eventually I return to it and even just the passing time will help me figure out the obstacle. A lot of the times not, though.


 * Do you tend to be more interested in internal dynamics, or external determinations?**

External determinations are more interesting to me. I like to think about "big picture" and think about interdependence of outside forcings on a system. I think context never (or almost never) falls away because I need context to not only make the object/system/xlkjnsaoiv meaningful, but also understandable.


 * What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to "the deviant" or rather repulsed by it?**

It's important to accept counter examples. An outlying data point is still data. I like to try to spend time to understand counter examples because there is likely something important to learn (maybe they are even more useful).


 * Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives?**

Often I find that if I construct a narrative it will be clear that the world is not a logical place. Thinking about how external determinations affect a system illustrates this. I don't think complexity and logic go very well together. I don't think I construct narratives as much as I acknowledge them or use them to help me understand object/system/aflkoinaf.


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

I try particularly hard to not over-generalize because I know that the more assumptions I make, the less accurate the model is. How assumptions affect models isn't limited to science or engineering, we make models in our brain too - constantly. I think it's very important to identify when I'm making an assumption and how that might affect the rest of my thought process when I'm thinking about object/system/twqnba.


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

I like different interpretations because they are a great opportunity to learn. Sometimes if they disagree with me //and// their interpretation is not based on fact, I feel frustrated. I respect arguments based on fact, and it is personally meaningful for me to accept evidence and know that my arguments are dynamic and change with facts.

example of frustrating interpretation that I read from this morning: []

hah, at least he aggregated real news links at the beginning of his article.

Perhaps this is me being biased; I don't think so.


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

I answered that inadvertently in the previous question. I accept new evidence and my arguments are based in it.


 * 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 definitely think with metaphors. Like modeling, our brains are also good at making comparisons. Sometimes I use observations to compare things, sometimes I compare things to my personal experiences.


 * 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 don't understand this question. Since I accept that the world (complex systems) are not logic-based, why would I be frustrated about answers not being binary?