Jan. 20th, 2003

rfmcdonald: (Default)
In keeping with my recent postings on the Meyers-Briggs' test, I thought I'd share a friend's article: Stephen DeGrace's "Reconciling Keirseyan and Jungian/Myers-Briggs Theories: An Alternative System of Functional Analysis". It comes highly recommended.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
My Keisey Temperament II test results, from here:

Your Temperament is: Rational (NT)
Your Free Temperament Description

All Rationals (NTs) share the following core characteristics:

  • Rationals tend to be pragmatic, skeptical, self-contained, and focused on problem-solving and systems analysis.

  • Rationals pride themselves on being ingenious, independent, and strong willed.

  • Rationals make reasonable mates, individualizing parents, and strategic leaders.

  • Rationals are even-tempered, they trust logic, yearn for achievement, seek knowledge, prize technology, and dream of understanding how the world works.

rfmcdonald: (Default)
The Portrait of the Mastermind (iNTj)

Of the four aspects of strategic analysis and definition it is the contingency planning or entailment organizing role that reaches the highest development in Masterminds. Entailing or contingency planning is not an informative activity, rather it is a directive one in which the planner tells others what to do and in what order to do it. As the organizing capabilities the Masterminds increase so does their inclination to take charge of whatever is going on.

It is in their abilities that Masterminds differ from the other Rationals, while in most of their attitudes they are just like the others. However there is one attitude that sets them apart from other Rationals: they tend to be much more self-confident than the rest, having, for obscure reasons, developed a very strong will. They are rather rare, comprising no more than, say, one percent of the population. Being very judicious, decisions come naturally to them; indeed, they can hardly rest until they have things settled, decided, and set. They are the people who are able to formulate coherent and comprehensive contingency plans, hence contingency organizers or "entailers."

Masterminds will adopt ideas only if they are useful, which is to say if they work efficiently toward accomplishing the Mastermind's well-defined goals. Natural leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command of projects or groups, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once in charge, however, Masterminds are the supreme pragmatists, seeing reality as a crucible for refining their strategies for goal-directed action. In a sense, Masterminds approach reality as they would a giant chess board, always seeking strategies that have a high payoff, and always devising contingency plans in case of error or adversity. To the Mastermind, organizational structure and operational procedures are never arbitrary, never set in concrete, but are quite malleable and can be changed, improved, streamlined. In their drive for efficient action, Masterminds are the most open-minded of all the types. No idea is too far-fetched to be entertained-if it is useful. Masterminds are natural brainstormers, always open to new concepts and, in fact, aggressively seeking them. They are also alert to the consequences of applying new ideas or positions. Theories which cannot be made to work are quickly discarded by the Masterminds. On the other hand, Masterminds can be quite ruthless in implementing effective ideas, seldom counting personal cost in terms of time and energy.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
From my Meyers-Briggs session. I don't think he meant this, but if it works ...

"You are born with one preference [...] the one you will always rely on without thinking. Every now and then, you use that other preference--you don't use it for long, but you do."
rfmcdonald: (Default)
What happens when you combine alternate history and the Chthulu mythos?

Good things.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
This livejournal entry does speak to a thread discussed earlier on my livejournal, about how desire rests upon things being hidden, upon restraint and mystery.

Thoughts?
rfmcdonald: (Default)

  • I talked to Dr. Innes-Parker about the reasons that I wasn't selected to go to Memorial for the undergraduate English conference. I wasn't picked mainly because the extreme cost of flying to Newfoundland meant only one student would be sent; I got the impression (probably not misguided) that if it was closer and cheaper, I'd've been sent. My paper could have been worded more in the vernacular, though, with looser language and more background suitable to presentation. Something to remember for future papers!

  • I dissected my Honours essay introduction with Dr. MacLaine; he thought it was quite good, and suggested only relatively minor tweaking. My main challenge will be integrating Gershenkron's theory of relative backwardness into the introduction while keeping it under ten pages in length. I'm ready, I guess, for my next-to-final draft of my Honours, some 60 pages in total, and then final, and then ... This will be good.

Page generated Mar. 23rd, 2026 06:20 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios