Thursday, February 16, 2006


What kind of jerk am I?

Thanks to all who "played" yesterday. Today is the opposite kind of assessment.

"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.


It should be noted that at least I approached this from a sort of worst-case scenario perspective: i.e, bad stuff you can manifest on occasion, but certainly not your minute-by-minute personality traits (unless you're drunk) :)
Slight modification: I just reread the words I chose and I stand by "cynical" as kind of a minute-by-minute trait, but that's SOP for the line of work you're in. And "brash," well, that's not just a once in awhile thing, either, but that's not always a bad thing.

Well, OK then, I think I'm done editorializing.
At first I put Hostile, Cruel, and Mean down, but I figure none of you know that well, so I went the blase negatives.

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?
Nick, now you know as well as I do how I get when I'm tipsy: "I love y'all, y'all love me .."

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.
Drlobo, I added "loud" because it made me pick five. I was stuck on four.

And I don't get why Jeannie, or anyone, would think you were imperceptive! Wow. :-)
Yeah, I do, ER, but "Big Country Barney" wasn't one of the options ...
Insensitive? Me? Nick?

Well, I played, but I didn't want to. I don't agree with some of the words I chose, but they were closer than others. So don't take these seriously, OK? (They didn't have a choice for panicky, Tums-eating maniac...) LOL.
Yesterday, when I did this Nohari window for Dr. B, I discovered that the first two adjectives were easy to come up with, but the last three required some effort. The same can be said for the two that I just did (ER, Dr. Lobojo). Filling out my window, however, I found easy. I wonder why. I guess I know myself alot better than I can know any of you based on the few words that we write and read each day. Anyway, if anyone is interested, here is mine.
Or maybe I just think I know myself. That's what's kind of neat about these things - we can see part of what others see in us.
Urgh. The negative one's so difficult! Feels too much like name-calling, even if we were invited to do it. And so I feel the need to explain:

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.
You, insensitive, ER? The other day you told Mark M. -- in front of God and everybody -- that he can't write and mocked the fact that he is twice divorced. A rare lapse, I'll grant you, but ...
Sorry, ER. I won't do this one. I think it's mean-spirited along the line of removing someone else's beam. Just assume I think you're fine and move on. :)
Nick ...

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. :-)
Many times you ask for it, ER! But I still like ya anyway. :)
Must have been my Orwellian dictionary letting me down again, ER ... : )
I think all your sins are sins of impatience. I totally don't get why people are saying "cynical," b/c, if anything, I think that the heat of anger stems from caring quite a bit, rather than from cynicism.

Takes one to know one. ;)
Who would have thunk it would be so hard to insult people.
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’m signing off and not going to say much for fear of setting you off again. I have a habit of putting things in as simple terms as possible and this seems to set you off. I admit when attacked for being misunderstood I’m as vicious as the next guy is, and for that I’m sorry. I stumbled into “The Roadhouse” while doing research for a book on bloggers. This was last summer about the time God had his tantrum in New Orleans. The first time you tore into me was by asking me to put my cards on the table after declaring how many degrees you have and wanting to know mine. I lied to put out the fire by telling you I was a 9th grade dropout. I’m a Doctor of Psychology PsyD. Let me say you have taken up a few paragraphs of my book. Drlobojo on the other hand has gotten more ink, as I have loved every minute of JO’s written word. I absolutely love to read anything you have written. ER, your obsession with education and intelligence I believe is the root of most of your troubles. It takes all kinds to make the world go around. I haven’t been on much the last two months because of my new project but I’ll check the bathroom wall from time to time.

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.

Fascinating, Captain Anon.

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.

But not.

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.
Hell ER, I thought that the Canada Bill Jones quote was my best one.
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.
Adeiu Anon
Hoo, what a day. Finally home, tater in the oven, got an hour to chill.

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!

Dominant Traits
62% of people agree that Erudite Redneck is loud

With Dr. Er , two dogs, a cat, bird and boy and their dog: of course you're loud. how else can you be heard?
PS ment every word :-)
heh! "loud" and "overdramatic" lead the pack!

drama queen! ;-P

no freakin' way i'm putting this thing on my blog....

Wait a minute, Anon. You say yer a PsyD? So, like, you wenr to the trade-sechool version of a doctorate in psychology? Why didn't you get a Ph.D.?

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.
But don't feel bad, PsyD Anon. They used to teach journalism in trade schools, too -- and we'd all be better off, in fact, if they still did.
Vocational versus Academic = a un-necessary dichotomy fostered on American Education in the last half of the 20th century, by intitutions bloated after WWII by the GI bill infusion of studnets who want to keep up their "growth".

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?
Sounds like the doc achieved just what he wanted. Another outburst for a few more chapters. Always put down others to make yourselves feel better about yourself.
Captain Anon? I thought you'd blown this Popsicle stand.

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.
ER, I contend that you need both. The academic and the vocational working in tandem, without one being "more important" than the other. Having held that public policy position for 30 years ment I was not warmly received in either camp, but as yellow dog democratic populist libertarian that has to be my position.

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.
I get so tired of you being to stupid to see that every anonymous comment is not from the same person. Some of your so called friends are probably to afraid of you to sign their names. You big old BULLY.
I get so tired of people who don't like what they read here coming back. Are you just desperate for camadaderie? Almost anyone can find it here! You, to, even, Anon. Why call me stupid? JeeZUS.

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.
As far as I can tell, there's little clinical evidence that "psychology" has the discipline or honesty to progress beyond the equivalent in physical medicine of Galen's humours, nor that they've managed to achieve a fulfillment of the Hippocratic injunction, "First, Do No Harm" except through general ineffectiveness.

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.
DrL: I think that quote about plumbers and philosophers predates John Gardner (RIP), though I can't find the reference on the web.

Incidentally, John Gardner was accused of plagiarism for lifting huge sections on Mesopotanian civilization for a reference work for use in The Sunlight Dialogues.
Found this on a blog, which I think is aprroximates the orginal quote; you can tell from the elaborate syntax that it's not contemporary.

"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."
" stupid to...."

to[sic] ironic!

TS, found the first quote a gadzillion times: "An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher......." all attributed to John Gardner either in 1961 or latter.
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.
In one of his writing books, Gardner talked about making up things he thought he remembered and I'll bet the reverse was true as well. My own foggy memory coughs up an unspecified Brit and Santayana as posible sources for the lengthier quote, but JG's version clearly springs from it.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?