Weblog

Monday, 14 September 2009

  • Pardon me while I sell out for a moment.

    So hey, anyone else want to get 2000% more music for your money?

    I recently found a website called mp3panda, which legally sells very cheap mp3's. The cheapness and legality are both due to the fact that the site is owned and operated in Russia, where compulsory licenses are purchased so distributors can bypass negotiations with the labels, provided that they pay the "Russian Organization on Collective Management of Rights of Authors and Other Rightholders in Multimedia, Digital Networks & Visual Arts" (ROMS), but that's not really relevant. (On a side note, I think they've stretched the rules of acronym building a bit on that one.)

    Anyway, not only does mp3panda sell individual tracks for only $0.05 each (yes, that says 5¢ each) and most albums for only $0.50 (yes, that's 50¢) , as a bonus perk there is a free album available daily, right there on the front page. When I signed up I assumed it was a gimmick and would only offer outdated or unpopular albums, but I've noticed that albums from the "popular" section are offered regularly. They even had Michael Jackson's 57-track "The Ultimate Collection" CD for free the week after his death. (It's currently $1.41 now that it's no longer free.)

    Anyway, I joined mp3panda for audiobooks - Orson Scott Card's audiobooks, the Ender Saga, specifically. For less than what iTunes wanted for The Xenocide alone [iTunes link], I got the full Saga (the four-book Ender series & the four-book Shadow series). That's eight audiobooks for the price of one. In terms of individual CDs or albums, for the same price of one album on iTunes you can buy twenty albums on mp3panda. Seriously.

    So yeah, I'm nerd, and yeah, I know this is basically a plug for the mp3panda website, but it would hardly have been polite to keep it to myself. And while I'm at it, ya know what? I'll endorse it even further. So far, every track I've downloaded has already been fully tagged with ID3 data (meaning the track name, artist, album name, etc), so after a drag-and-drop into iTunes I'm good to go. If you're OCD about keeping your iTunes library as a haven of organization like I am, that's something to appreciate. Some of the tracks even have album already artwork embedded, which is a definite plus.

    Since it's easy to stack up quite a download queue when albums are a half buck each, they also offer a free download manager so you can select all your tracks/albums and then download them later when you're not browsing.

    They currently have over two millions tracks by nearly forty thousand artists in their inventory and they add an average of 400 new tracks daily. You can browse their full inventory even without signing up so you can see if they've got what you want.

    Signing up is free, and the only catch is actually not even much of a catch. You pre-pay in set increments and then downloaded tracks are charged to the balance in your account. There's no service charges and your balance remains available forever until you use it. It's honestly a pretty sweet deal. I've been using the site for a while and have waited to share about it until I was sure there weren't any crazy catches or anything. There's not.

    Anyway, take a look or don't. I just thought I'd share.

Thursday, 20 August 2009

  • Too much?

    I hadn't written here in a while, so perhaps I had some pent up wordiness I needed to expell.  My last post has already received more footprints than is typical, yet there have been no comments.  

    As evident but the referrer stat, most click-throughs have come from the insert on my facebook feed.  Upon viewing the wall of text I can only presume that those visitors left rather quickly.  Those who peruse facebook are simply not used to reading anything more than 160 characters at a time.  (No offense to those of you who actually do write and read sizeable notes on facebook; you guys are the exception.)  My admittedly long winded blog on a perhaps too self-involved subject is simply not very inviting as leisure reading.  

    Most of the blog was just my own introspection and an over-explanation of the subject.  If you saw the unnecessary immensity of it and left it unread, I totally understand.  I did actually get around to making a point though.  Start here if you want to read only the actual point; the closing 5 paragraphs (well, 6 if you count the standalone sentence) are where it gets good..  Everything before that is just the culmination of years of self analysis, and is definitely more interesting to myself than to anyone else.  

  • My Introspection and Extrospection

    Are you familiar with the Meyers & Briggs Type Indicator theory of personality inventory?  There are many versions of profiling tests available throughout the 'net that an give you one of sixteen different four-letter type indicators.  Personality tests have become increasingly popular lately, even to the point that there is now a facebook application which will give you a type indicator and an all-too-flattering profile description.  (Personally, I can't take that facebook test seriously since the questions are far too vague and more-often-than-not aren't even grammaticaly correct.)  

    If you're slightly curious but don't want to wade through an in-depth series of self analytical questions, the absolute simplest version I've found is a mere four questions - and I actually just found another four-question test here; but it can still take a few minutes to think through before finishing.   What those abbreviated tests lack in length, they make up for in their margin of error.  (That was bad joke.)   Just now I took one of those and got INTP on one, but ISFJ on the other.  On the facebook app, I got INTJ.

    Why the different results?  A couple reasons:  Firstly, because personalities are dadgum complicated.  The more accurate tests are obviously the longer ones, since the only way to determine what a person's tendencies are is to pose hypothetical choices to build up a pool of discernible inclinations.  Even those short test have lists of things that must be collectively selected.  Secondly, because I'm kind of hard to peg when it comes to personality types.  

    My first experience with personality profiling was a paper version of the four color test we took in my English class during senior year.  It was of those basic multiple choice quizzes where at the end you add up each of the A's, B's, C's, and D's, and then whichever you had more of determined your type.  My top result was Green/Idealist, then Blue/Rational, Red/Artisan, and Yellow/Guardian.  The weird part is that Green was only one point higher than Blue and Red, which were actually tied, and Yellow was only a point behind them.  I probably couldn't have done that if I'd tried.  Anyway, I thought it was weird, and while everyone else was bragging about their type's strengths or bemoaning their type's shortcomings, I was sitting there thinking about the tiny margin being used to label me as "Green."  

    It didn't take long before I stumbled onto different types of personality typing on the internet.  When I first took a Meyers-Briggs type test online years ago, I was mostly interested in it since it offered up much more detailed types.  Having more a more graduated spectrum of types seemed much more likely to give more precise results.   (On a side note, it wasn't until later that I realized the Kiersey Temperament Sorter is based on the major divisions between the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicators.)  The first time I took it, I was satisfied to be called an INFP.  I think that this is the first profile I'd read on INFP's, so I was fairly pleased.  Later, I found this one, which kind of makes INFP's sound like flakes.  So, again, I began questioning the accuracy since a lot of the profiles had largely differing descriptions.  Although I was consistently INFP for several years, when I started browsing the profiles of other types, like INTJ's, and ISFP's, I noticed that there were many aspects that I thought sounded much like myself (and I was considering the shortcomings as well as the positive points). Eventually I found more free online tests, and began getting different results.  It all depended on the particular perspective of the test and profiles as to whether or not I agreed with the results.  

    Although I've always thought of myself as an INFP (even with increasingly inconsistent results), I recently took a personality type test I'd never come across before, and the results are what I've always suspected.  Below are the percentage results, with the the associated meaning of each indicator:

    Extraverted (expressive)14%  /  Introverted (attentive) 86%

    Sensing (observant) 50%  /  iNtuitive (introspective) 50%

    Thinking (tough-minded) 50%  /  Feeling (friendly) 50%

    Judging (scheduled) 50%  /  Perceiving (probing) 50%


    OK, so clearly I'm an introvert, but that's not surprising to anyone.  But equal parts everything else?  That's quite surprisingly not surprising at all - at least not to me.

    Within my own mind I've always categorized myself to be a bit of a social chameleon.  At work I can be downright down to business without relent - when it's called for.  Some days, there's little to require such intensity and casual banter with co-workers is entirely appropriate.  Other times, there's business issues to discuss and the banter is traded for analytical processes and task-mindedness.  

    The same shifting of personality-moods takes over my personal life as well.  It all depends on the topic of conversation, our location, the conditions of the interaction (be it a planned event, impromptu gathering, or happenstance encounter), what my perceptions/judgments tell me regarding what the other(s) expect of me, what approach will be most appropriate for satisfying my interpretation of what I think/feel is right at that moment, as well as a whole bunch of other factors I'm sure will come to mind later.  It sounds ridiculously complex, and perhaps as though I'm bragging about how much effort I put into my interactions with people, but this all happens instantaneously and at an instinctual or subconscious level.  Sometimes I'll be having a very ISTJ kind of day, have a brief INFP moment (or vice versa) without realizing it, and not fully understand why - until giving it thought afterwards.  I can often figure out what minor clues and subtle cues I must have picked up on to provoke a personality-mood change, but it can sometimes feel as if I'm trying to justify my actions after the fact, or to attribute to myself superhuman perceptions, so I'm wary of putting too much time into convincing myself that everything I say is exactly right.  ( hah :-] )  

    So, when I stumbled onto a test that actually showed percentage scores (those above) for each subset, suddenly my shifting results on previous tests makes more sense.  Unfortunately, it means I can't fully trust any of the individual profile descriptions.  

    Each profile of the introverted personality types contain segments which are perfectly accurate descriptions of me and others which are entirely off the mark.  I have the heightened awareness of the inner struggle between good and evil typical of an INFP, but not the tendency to become irrational when emotions are stirred - in fact, I tend to get more analytical and deliberately practical.  I've got the distant and efficient dependability of an ISTJ, but not the tendency toward oversimplification and/or assumptions that verge on prejudice.  I've got the language and nonverbal communication sensitivity of an INFJ, as well as the prophet-like intuition into other's motives.  I also have the ISFJ's problem of appearing to be simply sulking when actually deliberately and inwardly considering issues that ought not be spoken of until being fully sorted out.  I've the ISFP's ability to sense the winds of change, as well as the preference for experiential learning over standard classroom settings.  I also have the often annoying borderline obsession with logical correctness that's typical of an INTP, and am frequently misunderstood to be arrogant, like an INTJ, because I'm well acquainted with my own abilities and shortcomings.  (The links in this paragraphs are all to the typelogic.com site, where the profiles are rather brief.  I actually like personalitypage.com's type profiles better because they are more in-depth and specific.)

    If I had to rate the Meyer-Briggs composite types that my personality seems to overlap in the order which I believe they are actually prioritized in my mind and actions (which I feel compelled to do, because I'm a nerd like that), I'd say that the order would roughly be this (and this time the links are to the personalitypage.com's profiles):

    MBTI - Common Name / Kiersey Temperament: Character Type

    1. ISTJ - "The Duty Fulfiller" / "Guardian: Inspector" 
      INFP - "The Idealist" / "Idealist: Healer"
    2. INTP - "The Thinker" / "Rational: Architect"
      IN      FJ - "The Protector" / "Idealist: Counselor"
    3. ISFJ - "The Nurturer" / "Guardian: Protector"
      INTJ - "The Scientist" / "Rational: Mastermind"
    4. ISFP - "The Artist" / "Artist: Composer"
      ISTP - "The Mechanic" / "Artist: Crafter"

    I didn't plan it to come out this way, but see how the first two are introverted, but opposite on everything else?  The next two are introverted and intuitive, but opposite on the remaining two factors.  The next pair are introverted and judging, but opposite again on the other two, Then, the last two are both introverted, sensing and perceiving, but opposite on the remaining factor.  But remember, I sorted them due to an innate compulsion for order; they're all actually very near equal.  (I'm just as likely to be any one of these, depending on circumstances.  This is just my best effort at an "all things being equal" prioritization of thought processes.)  Each consecutive pair are really about tied. (After realizing this, I just went and renumbered the list from 1-8 to 1-4 to make that more clear - not that it matters to anyone but me.)

    I don't think that each of these are necessarily distinct modes of thinking which I switch back and forth between, but that I'm a little bit of each of them pretty much all the time.  Even my idealism is reigned by analysis; my best thinking is centered on my principles, etc. - you get the idea.  Sure, I have moods like everyone else, and there are times when I'll go for days in one mindset more than the others, but that's true of everyone.  

    As much as the Meyer & Briggs Type Indicator system gets praised, I think it could use a few more factors.  For example, age and maturity level affects behavior and self-analysis quite a bit; the test is only as valid as the person's answers.  On that note, intelligence plays an important role, too.  The mental acuity of a person greatly affects how broad or restricted their scope of thought (and therefore, behavior) is.  I could easily imagine an intelligent INFP geting mis-typed as an INTP, or a dull INTP mis-typed as an ISFP.  Gender should definitely be a factor, and I'm kind of surprised no one has decided to take it into account.  For each of the sixteen type indicators, I think there should be a distinction between the male and female aspects of that type.  A guy INFP simply isn't going to behave or think the same way as a girl INFP.  So, there should be 32 types, not 16.  Then again, if IQ were also to be taken into account, even with only three tiers ("sub-average," "average," and "above-average"), that would increase the number of types to 96.  (16 MBTI's, each with a subset for the 2 sexes, each with a subset for the 3 intelligence levels.)  Such precision would require innumerable case studies, research, and effort.  -But for what?  So people can take an oversimplified version of the test and post the results on their facebook, only to forget about it?  

    In reality, too few people consider personality tests to be anything more than an amusing novelty.  Those whose careers are in the research of such things obviously take it more seriously, but their best efforts are wasted on the majority of the masses.  When Mr. Average takes a personality test, he accepts it as a categorical stamp of approval for everything he does, so long as it fits within the combined diagnosis and prognosis of his personality.  "I can't help it, I'm just wired that way" is the sound people make when they yield to impulse and surrender their will.  

    But that's not what these tests are for.  Knowing your own tendencies does not purge you of responsability; it binds you with even greater responsibility.  If I learn that something is combustible, am I not responsible for the explosion if I carelessly put it near a flame?  So, if I were to learn that I have a short temper, am I not just as responsible for keeping an eye on my fuse?  The same is true of every tendency of every person everywhere.  Knowledge bestows responsibility, but it also grants power:  The power to change.  

    This is why I take interest in these things.  This is why I think everyone should.  Take a test.  Read your results.  Make yourself better.  Don't trust those gimpy short tests or those ambiguously uplifting type profiles on the facebook test, but do a little poking around on the more serious sites.  Figure yourself out.   You're the only you you're ever going to have, so shouldn't you take a little more interest in what makes you tick?    In the end, there really is a good reason for all this:

    Because there are probably some things about yourself that you don't know, but need to repent.  

    Yeah, seriously.  Unintentional behavioral sins can do incalculable damage throughout a lifetime.  Find out your faults, repent, and ask God for the grace to conquer them.  Self-realization is a natural part of spiritual maturity.  The greatest of spiritual leaders are those most familiar with their own faults.  The goal isn't to fix yourself until you're entirely self aware and perfect, but to become as honestly self-aware as you can sustain, because that will afford you the humility to seek God wholeheartedly.  I can't think of anything that makes me want for Him more, than the bitter awareness of my own self.  Get to know your strengths so you know what you can handle, and get to know your faults so you know what you need Him for.  

    I don't have a closing line in mind, so I'll repeat a good thought I already said:
    "You're the only you you're every going to have, so shouldn't you take a little more interest in what makes you tick?"

    2 Peter 1
    3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, 
    through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 
    4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that 
    through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped 
    from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. 

    5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, 
    and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control 
    with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with 
    brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are 
    yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in 
    the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is 
    so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his 
    former sins. 

    10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election 
    sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there 
    will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord 
    and Savior Jesus Christ.

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

  • I only have four months left.

    Early this year I began thinking about something. That in itself isn’t very noteworthy, but it led to more and more thinking, gradually shifting from the oft’ visited realm of fanciful notions into the smaller territory of serious consideration. This sequence continued and culminated in April, when I finally made a decision. Consequently, I now have only four months left…

    …until I ship out for the United States Marine Corps Boot Camp. Yes, really. If not for a major faux pas in my not-too-distant past this would easily be the most absurd and significant decision I’ve ever made. My family is already aware that I’ve enlisted, as are a few friends that I’ve been in recent contact with, but an official announcement seemed in order if for nothing else than to address the undeniable insanity of it.

    On April 15th of this year I turned 26 years old. On April 27th I went to MEPS for the ASVAB and physical screening, and then swore in that same day. Twenty-six is the oldest age accepted for enlistment without a special waiver. (The average age for USMC male recruits is 19.1, so I think you could call me a “statistical anomaly.”) A large portion of the many, many reasons why this is a crazy idea are satellites of the age issue.

    For starters, I’ve had seven more years to sit around and get out of shape than the average recruit. Not only am I at a disadvantage when compared to the typical high-school-athlete type of recruit, but most of them will be entering Boot Camp merely a few months or a single year after their prime. I, however, spent my comparable “prime” in the high school marching band and in the Blue Knights Drum and Bugle Corps - and have done virtually nothing physical in the eight years since then. You can see the issue, no?

    Secondly, it’s probably clear that my overall motivation for enlisting at age 26 isn’t equivalent to the motivations of the 19.1 year old average recruit, so this begs the question: What exactly is my motivation? My motivation is not the GI Bill, the job training, the promise of excitement, or that it’s way to escape a presently aimless life - It’s a part of all of those reasons rolled together, along with a whole mess of others, creating a nearly incommunicable conglomerate of reasons.

    Even if I take courses while enlisted and take advantage of the GI Bill afterwards, I’ll obviously finish school much later than my “peers,” but I’ll be without the debt that I’ve seen so many accumulate in the name of higher education, so I count that as a win. (What’s the benefit of a degree to get a better job if you only need that better job to pay off your degree?) Yet, that’s hardly a convincing reason to sign up and give away four years of my life, right?

    As for job training, this is a weird consideration. Would it even makes sense to claim job training as a primary motive for joining the “every Marine is a Rifleman first” Corps? I hardly think so. If job skills alone were my motive, I’d be enlisting in the Air Force (because, lets face it, that's where you'd think a skinny nerd like me would end up, right?). Yet, I don’t think it’s a big stretch to consider that the discipline and endurance (and arrogance?) of the Corps are universal assets, applicable to any job in any field. I must admit that the “intangibles” have perhaps carried more weight in making this decision than the “tangibles.”

    I could elaborate further, but I think I’ve rambled enough without actually clarifying anything. In the end, I probably couldn’t explain it to anyone else’s satisfaction even if I really wanted to. I’m enlisting because I want to; I ought to; I need to. God let me dawdle and go my own way for several years while this stirred in the back of my mind, but now it’s time to follow through. I think I perhaps should have enlisted years ago (when it would have “made more sense”) but I think I may be in a position (in life, as well as mentally/spiritually) to get more out of it now than I would have previously.

    Although the date is “projected” at this point and subject to change, I will be shipping out on November 2nd of this year. I don’t currently have a job contract, though - I’m waiting for the next list of openings to come out in September. I got a 98 AFQT on the ASVAB and my composite scores were all high enough that I can pretty much choose from any job that becomes available. (-With the exception of Crypto-Linguistics, but I’m planning on taking the DLAB [Defense Language Aptitude Battery] as well, and if I do well enough I’ll literally qualify for everything.) That said, it’s a matter in the hands of God regarding which jobs actually become available for me to choose from. My first choice would be anything in Linguistics. After that, I’m looking seriously at Artillery (hoping for Fire Control / Fire Support), Avionics, and even Accounting. I’m considering all of these as best case scenario dream jobs, however, and I don’t have my heart set on any of them.

    If it turns out that there are no interesting jobs available (or none that will actually make use of my nerdier skills/abilities) then I’m actually not at all averse to becoming a Grunt. We are at war, after all, and it is the Marine Corps I’ve enlisted in. The likelihood of being deployed (regardless of MOS) is essentially 100% right now anyway. Choosing a personnel job won't keep that from happening. The choices will be be slim, though, so my criteria is simple: Whichever job will be the most mutually beneficial - in terms of satisfyingly utilizing my abilities to their maximum effect - is what I will select. It sounds cold and calculated, but it feels deeper in my head. I fully expect God to make the appropriate choice very clear when I see the list.



    In the end, this is were I've decided to invest my dwindling supply of idealism. Call me crazy if you'd like, but naivete is no part of this - I know what I'm getting into. As reiterated to me by every Marine who has mentioned it, I will look back on surviving Boot Camp as the hardest thing I've ever done. In truth, there's a perverse kind of satisfaction in considering that I'll have chosen to endure my greatest difficulty, as opposed to having it thrust upon me without my consent.

    -Elijah

Saturday, 27 June 2009

  • Life's a Game. Save Often.

    Yeah, that's definitely a pun. :D

    On to the analogy:

    Let's say I write a computer game and I define all the variables that comprise the rules.  We'll call that program Universal.exe, just for fun.  Then I write another game that allows the user to redefine their own rule variables for the game.  We'll call that program Conditional.exe.  

    If you were to play Universal.exe, it would be possible to learn the rules and eventually beat the game.  Then you could invite your friend to play the game to see how well he does compaired to you.  It would be a fair comparison, because the rules would be the same for him, as well as for anyone else who played.  No matter how many people played the game, judgements of each person as "good" or "bad" at the game would be evident by comparison.  The higher score or better time would clearly define who the better player was.  You could reasonably make judgements on who is good at playing the game.  

    If you were to play Conditional.exe, it would simple enough to define the rules and then beat the game by those rules.  You could also then invite a friend to play, and he could redefine the rules for himself and also beat the game.  You could compare scores, but, it would not be a fair comparison because you would each be playing with different rules.  A higher score or better time would be meaningless because the rules and conditions of the game were different.  Any claim that one player were better than another would be entirely unjustified.  But, perhaps you have another friend who agrees with you on what the rules should be, so he plays the game using the same rules as you.  The two of you could then compare scores and see who was better at playing by that set of rules.  You may find more people to agree and play by similar rules, and compare yourselves to them.  You could even find other groups of people who all agree on a different set of rules than your own.  They could compare and judge each other within their group, while you could judge and rate within your own.  Only those who played by the same rules could call each other good or bad by comparison.  Neither group would have any right to judge the others' performances, however, since the rules they play by are different.  The two groups would also not have any justification for passing judgement on the rules themselves, since the game left rules up to the players.  The rules themselves cannot be good or bad, only a player can be good or bad at playing by a particular set of rules.  

    Now, obviously it's a crude analogy, but the point I'm making should be evident:  The only way anyone or anything can truely be said to be good or bad / better or worse / right or wrong, is if we are all playing the same game by the same rules.  The only way that's possible is if the rules were not designed by those of us playing the game, but by someone who designed the game itself, including the rules.  

Top Tags - Weblog

[no tags]
  • Visit ElijahDH's Xanga Site
    • Name: Elijah
    • Country: United States
    • State: Texas
    • Metro: Hurst-Euless-Bedford
    • Birthday: 4/15/1983
    • Gender: Male
    • Member Since: 3/30/2005
    • True

Weblog Archives

Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save" above and refresh the page.

About Me

[no info]