Yglesias has a funny habit of arriving at pretty anodyne, facially obvious conclusions via logics so silly I end up wanting to disagree even when I don't
It took me a while, but I think I see something salvageable in Okun's list. Take a virtue like punctuality -- judging people by it can take prejudicial, essentializing forms. Even without explicitly forming thoughts like "those people don't value time like us", just remembering that "Vance is unpunctual" -- where it's not relevant to the work in hand -- is a form of the same harm or danger as personality theory.
I really love this piece. The impulse to categorize is interesting. I studied biology focused on taxonomy, and it’s obvious that those frameworks aren’t dictated by nature; they are somewhat arbitrary ways for us to understand the multitudes in nature with limited understanding. People also vary ad infinitum. “Types” help us save time, but also limit our imaginations. Language is like that too; the words we learn affects how we see the world and what’s possible. A word necessitates an approximation, to an extent. This is especially thought-provoking as I’m trying to deconstruct an autism diagnosis as an adult (it wasn’t really a surprise). That’s not a “personality type” but it’s perceived (and stereotyped) in the same way by others, who treat me accordingly. Language and categories can help us recognize and “accept” as a given the similarities or differences between us. But those words or categories still operate within a power structure, so ultimately any attempt by people to empower themselves with autonomy of identity is going to clash with the need of others to create an ‘us vs them’ dynamic, then retrofit an appropriate origin story that dehumanizes the other and “explains” how they got to be that way.
"Responsibility and discipline must not frighten the revolutionary. They are the traveling companions of the practice of social anarchism." -- definitely not a left-winger like Nestor Makhno
Yglesias has a funny habit of arriving at pretty anodyne, facially obvious conclusions via logics so silly I end up wanting to disagree even when I don't
Man, I didn't expect the Yglesias piece to get this bad. "That’s why the ex-cop, tough on crime mayoral candidate in New York City is Black."
Why is Dianne Morales black? Why is Maya Wiley black?
It took me a while, but I think I see something salvageable in Okun's list. Take a virtue like punctuality -- judging people by it can take prejudicial, essentializing forms. Even without explicitly forming thoughts like "those people don't value time like us", just remembering that "Vance is unpunctual" -- where it's not relevant to the work in hand -- is a form of the same harm or danger as personality theory.
I really love this piece. The impulse to categorize is interesting. I studied biology focused on taxonomy, and it’s obvious that those frameworks aren’t dictated by nature; they are somewhat arbitrary ways for us to understand the multitudes in nature with limited understanding. People also vary ad infinitum. “Types” help us save time, but also limit our imaginations. Language is like that too; the words we learn affects how we see the world and what’s possible. A word necessitates an approximation, to an extent. This is especially thought-provoking as I’m trying to deconstruct an autism diagnosis as an adult (it wasn’t really a surprise). That’s not a “personality type” but it’s perceived (and stereotyped) in the same way by others, who treat me accordingly. Language and categories can help us recognize and “accept” as a given the similarities or differences between us. But those words or categories still operate within a power structure, so ultimately any attempt by people to empower themselves with autonomy of identity is going to clash with the need of others to create an ‘us vs them’ dynamic, then retrofit an appropriate origin story that dehumanizes the other and “explains” how they got to be that way.
"Responsibility and discipline must not frighten the revolutionary. They are the traveling companions of the practice of social anarchism." -- definitely not a left-winger like Nestor Makhno
amid all this hegel i have to ask a dreaded question - what's the best way to get in to the guy for someone who has only cursory experience with him?
Not sure Myers-Briggs and the Big 5 have much in common. it is . . . errr . . . flattening maybe to think they do.