Thursday, February 16, 2006
What kind of jerk am I?
"The Nohari Window is a challenging inversion of the Johari Window, using antonyms of the original words. By describing your failings from a fixed list of adjectives, then asking your friends and colleagues to describe you from the same list, a grid of perceived and unrecognised weaknesses can be explored."
Pick ER's negative traits.
Well, OK then, I think I'm done editorializing.
P.S. I did sometimes root for the bad guys, especailly in Gene Autry movies.
Hey ER why does Bitch get 312 hits on her johari square and you get 7?
Drlobojo: My dear Bitch had, like a brazilian readers, that's why. Her site is Grand Central Station. Mine is Petticoat Junction, by way of comparison.
Not that I wear a petticoat. In public anyway.
And I don't get why Jeannie, or anyone, would think you were imperceptive! Wow. :-)
As Nick has already noted, cynical and brash are rather par for the course for you. "Predictable" because of how you always stand up for your family and are consistent in your vociferous defence of what you believe. "Smug" cuz every now and again you just seem to have that tone. "Foolish" because you're a Shakespearean sort of fool, speaking your truth for those with ears to hear, even when you might get your ears boxed for it. Also, in the old tarot card game, the fool card was a trump card but wasn't worth any points--outside the game, but still affecting it.
Well, I take "insensitive" to mean careless with or indifferent to others' feelings. I MEANT to slam Mark in the instance to which you refer. There wasn't anything careless about it. I later regretted it, and removed the offending post. And now you've resurrected the gist of it, which is fine. But I wasn't insensitive, I don't think. I was deliberate, in the heat of argument.
As for the remark about his marriages. It was a terribly low blow. I hereby acknowledge it and offer my apologies -- to Mark and to all who saw it.
As for the writing: Read his novel, linked to his main blog, and y'all can draw your own conclusions.
Saying someone "can't write," on one hand, is like saying they "can't sing" -- it's in the eyes, and-or ears, of the beholder. See Bob Dylan. See Cindi Lauper.
On the other hand, I have often asserted Mencken's barb: "People can't write because they can't think."
That's enough about Mark. We are at peace, as far as I'm concerned.
Tech! Come on! I'm just ASKIN' for it!
Trixie: "Panicky, Tums-eating maniac." Only on deadline. :-)
Takes one to know one. ;)
ER is cynical because he is a failed romantic, he falls into the oxymoronic catagory of the romantic realist which of course if you are one you can't be the other, paradox is the mother of cynicism.
I don't want to say mean things about you. Even over the internets.
For the record, I do see the value of "constructive criticism," but I think we are most able to do something useful with it when it is offered in person, from someone whom we know loves us.
I started this blog while in the throes of finishing a master's degree in history, hence the "B.S., B.S., M.A." in the header. If that's an "obsession" with education and intelligence, then, um, guilty.
And I know a couple of psych Ph.D's very well. Either you are very good at creating a false front, or you're just a crazy as every other psychologist I've ever known. There are concentric circles of mental illness in psych circles.
And I have no idea what "troubles" you're talking about. The only troubles I've ever had on this blog were from a handful of people who, having once found my buttons, push them just to jack with me. My trouble is in not being to quote Skinner like Drlobojo can.
By the way, good luck on your book. Seems everybody who can use a keyboard seems to think he's capable of writing one. Writing one is one thing, getting a publisher to consider it is the hell part. But you know that, being psych doc.
Skinner, peesha, that's just the 1960s-70's education classes bleedin through. But knowin about Canada Bill, the scourge of all train riding clergy with a taste for the cardboard, now that's something.
The last time someone spilled ink on me in a book it had "Deception" in the title.
I'm touched by the reluctance of some of y'all to "be mean" to me! A couple of longtime friends even e-mailed me, one to ask if I was nuts to "ask for it" and the other to say she really didn't mean the traits she checked but she had to check some to play and she really wished she hadn't you know and would I forgive her. Well, yes. Hoot.
Shoot. This is nada. I had my staff in Texas do the same thing, anonymously, only with "essay" type questions. They left me a bloody mess.
I am hard to work for, which will not surprise most of you. But I do constantly strive to improve, in all areas of life, hence the staff evaluation of myself, which asked for both positives and negatives, and hence this "Nohari" window today and the Johari window yesterday.
Thanks to all who participated -- you, too, Anon -- and thanks to y'all who chose not to!
62% of people agree that Erudite Redneck is loud
REALLY??? Y'ALL THINK SO??? Hee hee
PS ment every word :-)
drama queen! ;-P
no freakin' way i'm putting this thing on my blog....
My guess is there is no dissertation requirement or even a research component to your "degree."
The Vail Model (PsyD)
Dissension with the recommendations of the Boulder conference culminated in a 1973 national training conference held in Vail, Colorado (hence, the Vail model). The Vail conferees endorsed different principles, leading to an alternative training model (Peterson, 1976, 1982). Psychological knowledge, it was argued, had matured enough to warrant creation of explicitly professional programs along the lines of professional programs in medicine, dentistry, and law. These professional programs were to be added to, not replace, Boulder-model programs. Further, it was proposed that different degrees should be used to designate the scientist role (PhD) from the practitioner role (PsyD--Doctor of Psychology). Graduates of Vail-model professional programs are scholar - professionals: the focus is primarily on clinical practice and less on research.
This revolutionary conference led to the emergence of two distinct training models typically housed in different settings. Boulder-model programs are almost universally located in graduate departments of universities. However, Vail-model programs can be housed in three organizational settings: within a psychology department, within a university-affiliated psychology school, and within an independent, freestanding psychology school. The latter programs are not affiliated with universities; rather, they are independently developed and staffed.
ER here: Piffle. It's vo-tech psychology.
Up until WWII the MD degree was the equivalent of a Bachelors with OJT attached and was reported in the data with that degree. RNs were changed over to academic 4 year degrees in the late 1970s and look at where are with that shortage today. Pharmacy shifted just 10 years ago to the academic degree. Even undertakers now get a bachelors.
If Bush has his way, the "No College Student Left Behind" bill will shift it back in content but not name, and will convert all of postsecondary education into trade schools, where a student's success will be measured by entrance, mid-studies, and exit standardized test nationwide (kind of like medical school today). Everyone will be just like everyone else, functional but flatuant. Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about such a system in the 1950s.
Come to think of it this argument goes back to the Carver/Dubois debate on whether "Negros" would be better off learning a trade or an academic skill(1920s?). It is a false dichotomy, like nature and nurture, that always pushes to far one way or the other and seldom finds that golden mean.
Oh well, I digress..ramble...what was the subject?
You drew first blood with me a long time ago. You lied, right off the bat. And, you think that anonymous manipulation of people is fun, or useful. It's unethical.
I hope you DO write yer book, and you put ol' ER in it. You better go back and delete every commnet you ever made on this blog, though. I'd out myself to take down somebody before the APA, or an institutional review comittee.
Drlobojo, I wasn't kidding when I said journalism would be better off if it still were treated like a trade.
As John Gardner said,
"An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."
Anon, you need to be writting, get to work, and stop playing at being the puppet master. Will this be an Illustrated Novel by the way? All of a sudden I can see the work in that format.
Knowing that you will not be kind, go away, and let us rant in peace.
Drlobo, I pretty kmuch agree with you. What galls me is academics trying to be clinicians, or clinicians trying to be academics.
There is no such thing as academic journalism, BTW, only academic media studies, or mass communications or some such.
If Capn Anon is a PsyD, he-she probably is a clinical pysch, correct? Means sh/he is not academic-oriented -- meaning sh/he is pretending, if trying to muck around on BLOGS for cryin' out loud for a book on anything other than the novelty of it.
Dr. Phil has given psychology a bad name. Any yahoo thinks s/he can be one these days.
It's like expecting most "sociologists" to be primarily something other than ideologues, or their scholarship to be other than tendentious special pleading.
And, yeah, everything has an ideological slant, but refusing to distinguish degrees and types just leads one to the usual tenth grade revelation that "ultimately everyone is selfish", lumping those who lost their lives assisting others and Jeff Skilling into the same useless category.
Incidentally, John Gardner was accused of plagiarism for lifting huge sections on Mesopotanian civilization for a reference work for use in The Sunlight Dialogues.
"If society esteems philosophers because philosophy is a lofty pursuit, and dismisses plumbers because plumbing is a lowly pursuit, it will have neither good philosophy nor good plumbing. Neither its thoughts nor pipes will hold water."
TS, found the second quote a score of times:""If society esteems philosophers because philosophy is a lofty pursuit, and dismisses plumbers because plumbing is a lowly pursuit..." with no attribution or as a wise man once said.
Checked out my quotation sources in house, Macmillan Book of Proverbs Maxims & Famous Phrases copyrighted in 1948 and found nothing like it.
But as sometimes happens the original quote may not be in English and Gardner may have appropriated it that way.
I'll put this on my watch list of curious things to ponder and seek.