Author: thisduck

The following is an excerpt from Keith Johnstone’s Impro for Storytellers (it’s an extension/expansion of his thoughts in Impro) that I came across today.

Journey without Maps

My son is scowling at a piece of paper.
“What’s that?” I ask.
“A semantic map!”
“A what?”
“I have to write a story and I’m supposed to map out everything that’s going to happen so that my teacher can mark it. She says it’ll stop me writing the wrong things.”
(He’s aged ten and yet she’s already destroying his pleasure in writing just as someone once destroyed hers.)
“Why not draw the map afterwards?”
“But how will I know what to write?”
“Have you ever been on the beach and discovered a cave?”
“Yes.”
“Did you go in?”
“Of course.”
“Well – writing a story can be like creeping into a forbidden house, or lowering a gigantic hook into a haunted lake.”
He likes this idea. “But how do I begin?”
“Start with something ordinary and then have something mysterious happen.”
He goes away for a while, full of enthusiasm, but then he comes back disheartened, and says, “I’m stuck!”
“What’s your story about?”
“It’s about a boy who has to write a story.”
“Is he in trouble?”
“No.”
“Well, stories are about people who get into trouble.”
He rushes off for a whole hour and comes back looking pleased. “He’s in such a mess. Now what?”
“Either rescue him or make him suffer more.”
“But how can I end my story?”
“Feed things back in that happened earlier. Where did your story begin?”
“At school.”
“Then why not work the school into the end of the story? Stuff you’ve mentioned earlier should be reincorporated.”
“Reincorporated?”
“Fed back in. Oroborus.”
“What’s oroborus?”
“A snake eating its tail.”
Stories seem so well constructed that it’s natural for teachers to assume they were thought up in advance, but Gregor Samsa could have mated with another cockroach, and Humpty Dumpty could have been unscrambled by feeding him to a chicken.

We were made to do the MBTI Personality Test as part of the Organizational Behaviour course. I’ve done one on the internet before and have been classified as an INTP type. I was curious to see whether doing the “official” test would result in the same, it did. When the professor asked us our opinions about personalities and personality tests I wanted to raise my hand and say, “yeah, so I did the personality test, and it says that my personality is awesome.”, but I didn’t.

I find personality tests both odd and interesting. It seems to me that a personality test would tell you what you think of yourself since you are the one answering questions about yourself. This way the result will be what you think of yourself. So if in one of those blog quiz personality tests you get the results saying that you are awesome, it might not be because you are awesome, but because you think you’re awesome. It would be interesting to see how the results would differ if someone else were to fill in the test for you. I did say that in class, that the results are what you think of yourself. The professor said that the tests are designed to work around that. I’d be interested in reading stuff by Carl Jung and David Keirsey.

I think that the description of an INTP is fairly accurate in describing me, but then again, I think that it’s what I think of myself anyway.

Here is what Wikipedia says about INTPs:

INTP types are quiet, thoughtful, analytical individuals who don’t mind spending long periods of time on their own, working through problems and forming solutions. They are very curious about systems and how things work, and are frequently found in careers such as science, architecture and law. INTPs tend to be less at ease in social situations and the “caring professions,” although they enjoy the company of those who share their interests. They also tend to be impatient with the bureaucracy, rigid hierarchies, and politics prevalent in many professions, preferring to work informally with others as equals.

INTPs organize their understanding of any topic by articulating principles, and they are especially drawn to theoretical constructs. Having articulated these principles for themselves, they can demonstrate remarkable skill in explaining complex ideas to others in simple terms, especially in writing. On the other hand, their ability to grasp complexity may also lead them to provide overly detailed explanations of “simple” ideas, and listeners may judge that the INTP makes things more difficult than they are. This to the INTP, however, is incomprehensible: They are merely presenting all of the information.

INTPs’ extraverted intuition often gives them a quick wit, especially with language, and they can defuse the tension in gatherings by comical observations and references. They can be charming, even in their quiet reserve, and are sometimes surprised by the high esteem in which their friends and colleagues hold them.

When INTPs feel insulted, however, they may respond with sudden and crushing criticism. After such an incident, INTPs are likely to be as bewildered s the recipient. They have broken the rules of debate and exposed their raw emotions. This to an INTP is the crux of the problem: their emotions are to be dealt with in a logical manner. If improperly handled, they can only harm.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Architects (Keirsey’s equivalent of an INTP):

Architects are introspective, pragmatic, informative, and attentive. The scientific systemization of all knowledge, or Architectonics, is highly developed in Architects, who are intensely curious and see the world as something to be understood. Their primary interest is to determine how things are structured, built, or configured. Architects are designers of theoretical systems and new technologies. Rearranging the environment to fit their design is a distant goal of Architects.

Of all the role variants, Architects are the most logically and verbally precise. In casual conversations, they may be tempted to point out errors the other speaker makes, with the simple goal of maintaining clarity within the exchange. In serious discussions, Architects’ abilities to detect distinctions, inconsistencies, contradictions, and frame arguments gives them an enormous advantage. In debates, Architects can sometimes be devastating, or alienate themselves from the group with overly logical arguments.

Of all the role variants, Architects have the greatest ability to analyze the world in depth. They prefer to quietly work alone and they may shut other people out if they are focused on analysis. This, coupled with the fact that Architects are usually shy, makes it difficult for other individuals to get to know them. In social exchanges, Architects are more interested in informing others about what they have learned than they are interested in directing the actions of others.

Credentials or other forms of traditional authority do not impress Architects. Instead, logically coherent statements are the only things that seem to persuade them. Architects highly value intelligence, and can be impatient with people with less ability than they have. Architects often perceive themselves as being one of the few individuals capable of defining the ends a society must achieve and will often strive to find the most efficient means to accomplish their ends. This perspective can make Architects seem arrogant to others.

What does your type look like?

But from where we were, we have all this crap going on around us. We kind of, sort of care, but not quite enough to do something about it. Letter writing is nice, but it’s like calling a non-functional fire department. That truck will not come around. So what do you do?

You still need to put the fire out. We know that you can’t do it alone. So you have to get help. You need other people. A collective, if you will, or a ‘collective will’. I think we lack this collective will.

It’s not that small actions don’t matter. They somewhat matter. But they need to have the potential to snowball into something larger. Like when a snowball rolls down a hill, it gets larger and stronger. A snowflake alone, even though it has a pretty pattern, isn’t quite enough.

We can complain that “special interest groups” and lobbyists have control of the laws and decisions that are made. To me this means that the collective will of the special interest groups and the lobbyists is stronger. We lack a relentless collective will.

But how do you build a relentless collective will? How do you sustain it? What actions come of this will?

Regardless of whether you’re right leaning or left leaning, I think we can agree that there need to be better measures for government accountability. That voting is not enough a measure. Also, I think this concept that “you can’t complain if you didn’t vote” is bullshit. Because at the end of the day it doesn’t matter which party is in power. This is the ground I live on, and this is the air I breathe, if I have something to say you had damn better listen, and I will do the same.

But what are these measures? How do we get them into place?

At some point in 2003 I really stopped caring. At least I ignored the news, so that I didn’t have to listen to everything that was going on. I didn’t have to follow the Israel-Palestinian issue, I didn’t have to know how many people were starving in the city. I just did my school thing, then the working thing and trying to live in ignorance. But that’s like abstaining, similar to how the European countries (or the US) abstained from voting on UN resolutions. How can you abstain? How the fuck can you abstain? That’s absurd.

Abstaining is bullshit.

I have been tagged.

Rules:

Once you’ve been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 16 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 16 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it’s because I want to know more about you.

1. I love the Internet, though it was not love at first sign-on. It kinda just grew. I really like HTTP and am fascinated by TCP. It’s amazing how certainty and order (TCP) is built over uncertainty and chaos (IP). The fact that it all just works is amazing. And then you have HTML, CSS, Javascript and the lot. The growth of entities like Wikipedia, the spread of open source software, communities like Flickr and all. It’s unreal.

2. University years: I did not participate in a single extra-curricular activity during my university years. In fact, I barely attended lectures and only one of my professors knew me by name. I graduated from Computer Engineering, but didn’t actually get in to it. I got into Mechanical engineering and switched the year after. Oddly enough, I had a rep of being somewhat clever. For the record, my highest mark in a course was 95 (in my first year) and lowest was 51 (last year).

3. I started magic when I was 23. I get envious of people who started when they were 9 or 12. They got over a decade more time with magic than I did. I want to make a video of me doing magic for random people, except that I need to get over my shyness in those situations. (I also need a person to operate the camera). Someday I want to do magic professionally.

4. I still wear shirts I wore in high school (I graduated from high school in 2001).

5. Swimming makes me dizzy.
   5a. I once killed a frog with my bare hands.

6. Work: I once co-wrote and performed a skit at a company Christmas party after which people came up to me, shook my hand and said “that was a great resignation letter”, and “well, it’s been nice knowing you”. At another time, in order to make a point, I came into work and started to clean my desk and did no work the entire day.

7. In high school, after having been shown a video on the “top influential people of the millennium” in physics class I argued with the teacher whether Shakespeare should have been that up high. The next day my English teacher asked me, “what was it that you said about Shakespeare?”. My English teacher and physics teacher were married.

8. I don’t like complimenting people, so if I do it, I really mean it.

9. This is the first time I’ve been tagged, or have tagged anyone else in an Internet meme.

10. Living in Saudi, I used to think that “betrol” was the proper spelling and that “petrol” was a typo.

11. I have seen every episode of Grey’s Anatomy (minus the latest episode).

12. I spent over a month in Mumbai in 2007 and did not go sightseeing even once. I am an idiot. I did, however, go to visit family in Hyderabad for one day. We went to visit approximately ten houses that day. My stomach was sick for the next week and a half.

13. A lady at Subway (sandwich/subs) once asked me if I was Australian.

14. I was in the Boy Scouts of America when I was in Saudi. We used to go camping and tie knots and things. I still have shark teeth that I once found during a camping trip.

15. I regret not having taken drama in high school.

16. I want to write a children’s book that will make children cry.

I don’t know 16 people and Iffat already tagged most of the people I would have tagged.

I tag: Basit, Faiqa, Sophister, and Waleed.

Also, 5a is not true.

The following was written January 16th 2002 (7 years ago!), and addresses one of the things I want to get to.

Note: This is just my opinion, take it for what it’s worth…

Canadian Democracy?

Canadian democracy. Where is it?

Are we deceived?

When you turn on the television you will see the “expert” saying that our right to protest is a sign of democracy. This “expert” will also show a clip of a person voting will say that also is a sign of democracy. But sadly it seems that is all democracy offers in Canada.

If you think about it for a moment, we elect our dictators. Once a majority government is elected, they practically have dictatorial control. Regardless of what the citizens think or want, the government can pass any bill they want. The education bills passed during the Harris administration in Ontario were done with a lot of dissent from the general public.

There were mass rallies held to protest the bill. That didn’t change anything. It was a majority government. I call that a dictatorship.

The mega city bill is another example. Did we have a choice? And if so, did it matter? Does it really matter if we phone our MPs and tell them that we would like them to vote a certain way for a bill? The MPs will most likely vote as the leadership tells them to.

Some raise a point that the minority governments are kept “in check”. This unfortunately is not true. In Canada if the government is out voted on a bill, they are expected to call an election. This would imply that if the opposition parties didn’t like the minority government, they could easily build a coalition to defeat the bill proposed by the government and thus forcing an election. Or, if a minority government sees that support for them has risen, they can likewise create a bill where they will surely be defeated. Then an election can be called so that the minority government has a chance at becoming a majority government. Trudeau did it.

To me it seems like we are being played around with. Our protests amount to nothing, yet we pride ourselves in being able to protest. We elect our dictators, and then we hear about new bills after they have already been passed.

While governmental parties play with politics, the citizens lose the game.

Just my 1.8 cents.

(still to be continued…)