Signals From The Earth

I often feel I talk too much. But why? What makes it too much, and what signal does it send to those around me that I talk too much? If I’m talking too much, there must be a right amount to be talking. But how much even the most quiet person talks depends on how much needs to be said. So it must be that my ratio of talking to information needed is too high. Perhaps other people have a ratio of talking to needed information that’s too low.

Diagram 1

In Diagram 1, I demonstrate the implications. The x-axis is the rate of information exchange that is necessary under whatever circumstances. The y-axis represents the rate of information that is adopted by the talker. The center diagonal is the ideal function, in which the talker gets across what is needed, no more, and no less. We’ll call it the Need-to-Know line, or N. But even the ideal talker doesn’t follow this line indefinitely. At a certain minimum point, we are socially expected to talk even if we have nothing to say, just to prevent awkward silence. This is the dotted line toward the bottom of the y-axis, labeled the “Small Talk Line.” Furthermore, there is only so much that one can talk, regardless of how much needs to be said. This is represented by the top dotted line, labeled the “Lecture Line.” The resulting ideal rate (labeled “Ideal Talker”) is S-shaped, outlined in green.

But clearly, not everyone follows the ideal rate. Diagram one addresses the talkers who behave in a way approximated by the assumption that they operate on the basis of a uniformly lower or higher perception of how much information is needed. These rates are labeled “Guarded (N’)” and “BFFs (N”),” respectively. These talkers have differing minimum and maximum talking rates, and otherwise behave as if the Need-to-Know line has shifted in one direction or another.

Note, however, that there are multiple potential explanations for why they may have shifted. The “Guarded” talker could just be shy, in which case they are not actually misperceiving the proper location of N, but could be communicating less than necessary, due to difficulties connecting to their listeners. Or, the Guarded talker could recognize how much information needs to be shared, and intentionally decide to hold some back, perhaps for strategic reasons. Either of these cases could be quantified as “Undershare,” labeled in Diagram 1. But the possibility remains that the talker misperceives the location of N as being that of N”. This person may be underrating the strength of the relationship, or the needs of the listeners. This person is underrelating to his listeners, who may be offended.

Likewise, there are multiple explanations for the behavior of the Big Talker. He or she may know the location of N, but decide to share more. This may be because they are uncertain, and prefer to cover their asses rather than risk undershare, like lawyers. This would be the opposite of the strategic undersharer or secret-keeper, also observed in attorneys. Or, they may know that they are saying too much, but have difficulty being succinct, or for some other reason have problems communicating at a lower level. Serial restaters, sprawling storytellers, stutterers, etc. may fall into this category. These both constitute “Overshare” in Diagram 1. But there remains the possibility that they are mistaking the location of N as being N”. This person believes that the strength of the communication channel, relationship, or need for information is stronger than it actually is. The admirer, who desperately loves their audience and projects that love onto their listener, may fall into this category. The pedantic speaker may think their audience less informed than they truly are, and condescend to tell them more than they need to hear. The old friend whose companion has grown apart may find themselves tragically lost along the trail of N” while their friend knows N is inevitable.

This begins to answer my last question. Now that we have some idea of why people may share more or less than they should, it begins to become clear what signals may be sent to listeners of undersharers and oversharers. But the signals are ambiguous. Is the person who never gives me a full answer hiding something, are they shy, or are they just not that into me? Is the incessant talker (or writer) just covering their bases, are they bad at shutting up, or do actually think I’m stupid? Perhaps the interpretation is based on context, or even on the self image of the listener. I, for example, assume that anyone who talks to me too much is simply sexually attracted to me.

There is a related question: why is it sometimes hilarious to talk a lot, and really cool to talk too little? Easy. The comedian who talks a mile a minute is analogous to the super-smiley clown: they both act like they’re your best friend when you hardly know them, which is both absurd and lovable. Alternately, the person who talks too little is sending you the message that they don’t think you’re so hot, implying without showing that they are actually hot shit compared to you in ways that they know and you don’t.

The lesson, for me and everyone else, is simple. Unless you’re writing a legal opinion on a merger proposal, less is more. Sure, your audience may suspect that you’re holding something back, or that you don’t consider them to be your buddies. But at least you’re not insulting their intelligence. And if you’re lucky, you’ll give the impression that you are pretty much too cool for school.

This guy’s bad haircut is hilarious.

Last week, I retook the Myers-Briggs Personality Type test. I’d taken the test before. So I was surprised when the result proved enlightening. The Myers-Briggs test is designed to sort the test taker into one of sixteen personality types. The test defines personality types along four binary axes of psychological function, originally identified by Carl Jung in his book Personality Types: Introversion/Extroversion, iNtuitive[sic]/Sensing, Feeling/Thinking, and Perceiving/Judging. The subject answers a number of questions that place them along a spectrum for each opposition, and the result determines the subject’s personality type.

The last time I took the test and paid attention to the results, I was in high school. I was attending a math and science magnet school, and planned on studying computer science in college. My personality test result was “INTJ” : Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging. No surprise: introverted described most of the people at my school, and I felt I was no exception. Intuitive in the context of the test means something slightly different than in common parlance: it signifies an internal way of understanding things, perhaps using abstract ideas, feelings, theories, or rules, rather than an observational way of understanding things (”Sensing”). I thought of myself as a thinker rather than a feeler, as was expected of me, if nothing else for being a male. Judging meant discerning, clear-thinking, and rational. INTJ is the typical aloof scientist, disconnected from much of everyday life, but dedicated to solving the abstract problems set before them. I never paid the result much attention, since it didn’t seem to tell me anything I didn’t think I already knew.

So here I am, a soon-to-be law school graduate whose most polished work product is a decade-long existential crisis. I had given up on any clear answers. But I never stopped searching for inspiration, some sign or poem or earthquake that would slap me in the face.

I’m not sure why my results were different this time around. Maybe I just wasn’t honest with myself the first time I took it years ago. Maybe I just didn’t understand myself well enough to answer accurately. Maybe peoples’ personalities change over the years. If so, it’s not taken into account by Jung’s theory, as far as I can tell: the implication is that the result of childhood development will radically influence your entire life. Regardless, the new answer made a world more sense of my life, then and now: “ENFP.”

Extraverted iNtuitive Feeling Perceiving. At first I wasn’t sure what this meant, but as I read a few descriptions, my eyes started to widen. Talks too much. Starts projects he doesn’t finish. Cares more about abstract ideas than concrete facts. Prone to emotional dependency. Bad with details. Not punctual. It was like reading note cards jotted down by some celestial life critic. But it wasn’t all bad. Gifted with language. Prefers creative work. Strong inner values. Likes to read and travel. Committed to relationships. Likes helping others. At first it seemed too vague; wouldn’t everyone prefer to travel and avoid deadlines? But as I read on, I understood that the dead-on feeling I was experiencing wasn’t fortune cookie optimism (”You have great friends and will be wealthy pretty soon!”). It hit right at the insecurities I’ve harbored my whole life.

But maybe I could have done that myself. The very fact that I am able to identify the accuracy of my personality portrait means that I already understood myself fairly well in the first place. I probably spend an hour a day listing my own shortcomings with no help at all. What made it uplifting was that my most fundamental strengths and weakness had been joined together, linked inexorably with one another in a mutually justifying structure. It was okay to have flaws, because those flaws came with talents. It was okay to recognize those talents, because their reality was reinforced with concomitant flaws. The recognition of that wholeness flicked a light switch in my mind, and allowed a new sense of self-acceptance that I’ve been searching for a long time.

Then the pitfalls started to emerge in my vision. If I had it wrong before, what if I’ve gotten it wrong again? Doesn’t this outcome just reinforce the fact that my life is totally screwed up, that I’m in the wrong place and have little hope of succeeding there? Doesn’t Sartre say that existence precedes essence? Certainly I have a hand in the making of my own identity.  What if this isn’t progress, but just another station in a circular route of self-examination. After all, ENFPs are known for their peripatetic pursuit of self-realization. Wait, what?

Dr. David West Keirsey took the Jungian types and assigned temperaments to them. These have a long pedigree. In ancient times, my personality may have been called “choleric;” Keirsey called it Apollonian. I wonder if this is a reference to Apollo’s position among the muses (ENFPs are thought of as artistically inclined). Or perhaps it involves his prophetic powers. Although the Oracle at Delphi is often thought of as projecting the future, Jung argues that mythological narratives reflect our own path of personal development. Maybe Apollo represents the ability to look forward to the future of the self. In that context, we are all oracles, and are all called upon to prophesize.

As finals begin, I have my work cut out for me. Not only must I study for and execute my remaining tests, but I am continuing my bar application and finishing up work for the Clean Air Council. I also am engaged in various personal projects. It makes for a lot of time spent in the apartment. If you’re like me, and you need a simulation of human contact, try Berkeley’s audio course recordings. Of course, maybe you feel like you’ve already spent too much time at university.

So as a young guy, I have only vague childhood recollections of having an election result that reflected the popular will of the country. As a result, although I’m excited by the advantage Obama and the Dems in Congress seem to be enjoying, I have a hard time envisioning the election process really working. So while I prepare to cast my vote tomorrow, my mind runs through the kind of catastrophe I would be faced with in the event of a McCain victory.

 Loading ...

When I got back to Philadelphia after working in Austin this spring, I began working for Clean Air Council as a legal intern. It’s fairly awesome: CAC is one of the oldest environmental groups in the country. They have been around in some form since the late Sixties, before most of the relevant legislation was even in place. I had always wanted to do environmental law work, which I got a taste of this summer working for the City of Austin. So I said yes.

I’ve been working on a matter related to the National Environmental Policy Act, which to most people is gibberish. I’m also working with hike and bike trails in the Philadelphia area. One great thing is that the office is right on Rittenhouse Square, which is a very hip neighborhood with one of the nation’s most famous parks. It’s an awesome work environment, with lots of young, energetic people with really positive attitudes. So it’s a great break from law school, which is generally stuffy at best. I’m still not sure exactly what kind of job I want after law school, but I would include environmental law work in the list.

I connected with my Administrative Law professor today. This guy is more OCD than I could ever be. He talks to himself, paces little paths through the library, and follows the most meticulous routines in conducting his classes. In this class, I sit in an empty row; no one to the left or right of me. However, when I prepared to sit down, it occurred to me that because of this I wasn’t sure if I was sitting in the correct seat. I looked at the podium where the prof. was setting out his materials, squinted from afar at the seating chart, counting out the five chairs between myself and the end of the row, and sat down in the appropriate seat. The professor noticed me sit down, seemed concerned for a moment, consulted the seating chart himself, counted out the chairs, and relieved, gave me a thumbs up. Crisis averted, I suppose. -tps

My friend has started a new Wiki-based project called WiQED. The site is “a wiki-based forum for articulating questions, answers, arguments, and assertions.” The wiki will be hosted on this webspace for the time being. The idea is that instead of centering around unbiased factual assertions (like Wikipedia) or internal concept-journalism like most organizational wikis, the site allows users to contribute arguments for and against and reactions to different ideas. To help get it started, he has used some of the arguments from the “Top Ten Reasons Not to Drive” post on this blog. You can see the WiQED rendition of the argument here. -TPS

So I have been hosting a couple of guests from NYC who are visiting Philadelphia for the past few days, and it’s been pretty fun. However, it’s been a while since I’ve had houseguests in any form, and it has once again reminded me that my obsessive-compulsive habits are becoming stronger. Everyone has their own little routines, but some of us are better than others at not freaking right out when they are disrupted. Hiding my frustration has been an exercise in deception, like pretending to believe in Santa Claus.
(more…)

I have been batting around ideas to implement my own solution to various personal data issues, and have begun working in PHP to try out some solutions. Right now, I am planning on using mySQL to implement various relatively open data structures in which I can store this information, in order to provide optimal flexibility in my user interface (which is where the really important issues arise). After all, I’m sure that Google Calendar or any other personal organizing software you can find has great data structures- the problems are in userland.

(more…)

The “almost audible buzz” surrounding the iPhone has been much commented upon. I would prefer to think of the phenomenon as more of a clearly audible but incoherent low-frequency reverberation, like the sound of a cave filled with barking seals. These seals are called technology bloggers, and they are about as informed about the iPhone as the apes from the opening scene of 2001 Space Odyssey were about the huge monolith they were fucking with. So instead of comment on the internal mechanisms of this opaque polyhedron, they do what they usually do: pretend to discuss features while mumbling about advertisements people have already seen, rumors they have already heard, and discussion board posts that should never have been written. In other words, they regurgitate the contents of their web browser.
(more…)