(no subject)
Dec. 6th, 2007 07:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flamingsword"How can I know what I think unless I can see what I say?" - Erica Jong
Don't apologize for arguing with me. You don't have to be sorry, for serious. I believe in the dialectic process. I think the world makes tougher ideas if they're poked at and taken wrenches to by several kinds of engineers. The only times I ever want to NOT argue are when I'm tired or headachey, and then I'll just come back and rethink or rebut when I feel better.
I understand people better when they fight back, and take to ideas the same way. I make a lot of mistakes on my own, but somewhere in the struggle to prove my point or disprove yours we can more easily stumble on the truth. So argue like you're dancing with me, and let's move around until we find the groove this truth fits into.
Other people try to look at a broad view, take a long look and get smarter than the situation, take it all in at one go. That works for them. I prefer to problem solve in situ and to get dumber and more simple about things until they're deconstructed into simple components. And when I understand the bits, I put it back together into the whole thing. And then I start changing the shapes of the bits to see if a little width wouldn't help the gears here, or if the securing pins couldn't maybe go on the other side of that idea. I fuck things up deliberately, and interfere in things I don't completely understand, because if I don't I never will understand them. This way of going about things may be unique to me, or may be widespread but other people have shame and don't admit to it.
Whatever. I've said before that depth is not natural to me, so if you ever wonder why I go about things the hard way, well, feel free to try teaching me your problem solving skills. It looks easy because I've gotten a lot of practice doing things the wrong way. But if there's a better way to go about it, come find me. ;)
In other news, I want flying monkeys for Christmas. They can live in my cleavage.
Don't apologize for arguing with me. You don't have to be sorry, for serious. I believe in the dialectic process. I think the world makes tougher ideas if they're poked at and taken wrenches to by several kinds of engineers. The only times I ever want to NOT argue are when I'm tired or headachey, and then I'll just come back and rethink or rebut when I feel better.
I understand people better when they fight back, and take to ideas the same way. I make a lot of mistakes on my own, but somewhere in the struggle to prove my point or disprove yours we can more easily stumble on the truth. So argue like you're dancing with me, and let's move around until we find the groove this truth fits into.
Other people try to look at a broad view, take a long look and get smarter than the situation, take it all in at one go. That works for them. I prefer to problem solve in situ and to get dumber and more simple about things until they're deconstructed into simple components. And when I understand the bits, I put it back together into the whole thing. And then I start changing the shapes of the bits to see if a little width wouldn't help the gears here, or if the securing pins couldn't maybe go on the other side of that idea. I fuck things up deliberately, and interfere in things I don't completely understand, because if I don't I never will understand them. This way of going about things may be unique to me, or may be widespread but other people have shame and don't admit to it.
Whatever. I've said before that depth is not natural to me, so if you ever wonder why I go about things the hard way, well, feel free to try teaching me your problem solving skills. It looks easy because I've gotten a lot of practice doing things the wrong way. But if there's a better way to go about it, come find me. ;)
In other news, I want flying monkeys for Christmas. They can live in my cleavage.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
;)
Date: 2007-12-06 10:57 pm (UTC)Guess I'm not the only one who caught Tin Man.
Date: 2007-12-07 06:37 am (UTC)I'm glad you feel this way about the process. I wasn't sure, but generally that's how I feel about it, too. Also, it's not about trying a different way. It's about people who make a lot of mistakes comparing notes: "Okay... that one's poisonous. You sure? It looks tasty. Ok... Well, damn. Maybe I'll try it anyway, and just have an emetic nearby."
I call it my 'charmed life' method. I've done so many stupid things and survived, that there's a lot I know about. *laughs* It makes people call me wise.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-07 06:42 pm (UTC)I had to.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-07 09:13 pm (UTC)That said, there have also been a fair number of attempts to condition me out of this kind of behavior. It's not polite in the Theocracy to poke holes in State Belief.
Something similar could certainly lead a lot of people who might benefit from such an exercise to offer up apologies for it.
Say... I haven't seen you "oot 'n aboot" in a while, so I thought I'd give catching up a go.
I think if we had about seven feet of 1" square steel tube and 500 lbs of bananas we can achieve that whole "flying cleavage monkey" thing. ;)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-09 07:31 pm (UTC)...in other news...I want to be a flying monkey for "me"mas (christmas)...I think it would be great to live there.
;)