Happy Belated Father's Day!

St. Joseph with Infant Jesus

Clifton StrengthsFinder 2.0

I recently took the Clifton StrenghtsFinder test for a graduate course. It's similar to the Myers-Briggs test were it asks certain questions on how you feel about yourself, your personal relationships and your reactions to certain social scenarios. There are 34 key areas and the Clifton StrengthsFinder lists the top five. Let's see what I got. (Note: the following is under the "theme" description.)

Strategic

"The Strategic theme enables you to sort through the clutter and find the best route. It is not a skill that can be taught. It is a distinct way of thinking, a special perspective on the world at large. This perspective allows you to see patterns where others simply see complexity. Mindful of these patterns, you play out alternative scenarios, always asking, “What if this happened? Okay, well what if this happened?” This recurring question helps you see around the next corner. There you can evaluate accurately the potential obstacles. Guided by where you see each path leading, you start to make selections. You discard the paths that lead nowhere. You discard the paths that lead straight into resistance. You discard the paths that lead into a fog of confusion. You cull and make selections until you arrive at the chosen path—your strategy. Armed with your strategy, you strike forward. This is your Strategic theme at work: “What if?” Select. Strike."

Context

"You look back. You look back because that is where the answers lie. You look back to understand the present. From your vantage point the present is unstable, a confusing clamor of competing voices. It is only by casting your mind back to an earlier time, a time when the plans were being drawn up, that the present regains its stability. The earlier time was a simpler time. It was a time of blueprints. As you look back, you begin to see these blueprints emerge. You realize what the initial intentions were. These blueprints or intentions have since become so embellished that they are almost unrecognizable, but now this Context theme reveals them again. This understanding brings you confidence. 

No longer disoriented, you make better decisions because you sense the underlying structure. You become a better partner because you understand how your colleagues came to be who they are. And counterintuitively you become wiser about the future because you saw its seeds being sown in the past. 

Faced with new people and new situations, it will take you a little time to orient yourself, but you must give yourself this time. You must discipline yourself to ask the questions and allow the blueprints to emerge because no matter what the situation, if you haven’t seen the blueprints, you will have less confidence in your decisions."

Learner

"You love to learn. The subject matter that interests you most will be determined by your other themes and experiences, but whatever the subject, you will always be drawn to the process of learning. The process, more than the content or the result, is especially exciting for you. 

You are energized by the steady and deliberate journey from ignorance to competence. The thrill of the first few facts, the early efforts to recite or practice what you have learned, the growing confidence of a skill mastered—this is the process that entices you. 

Your excitement leads you to engage in adult learning experiences—yoga or piano lessons or graduate classes. It enables you to thrive in dynamic work environments where you are asked to take on short project assignments and are expected to learn a lot about the new subject matter in a short period of time and then move on to the next one. 

This Learner theme does not necessarily mean that you seek to become the subject matter expert, or that you are striving for the respect that accompanies a professional or academic credential. The outcome of the learning is less significant than the “getting there.”'

Responsibility

"Your Responsibility theme forces you to take psychological ownership for anything you commit to, and whether large or small, you feel emotionally bound to follow it through to completion. Your good name depends on it. If for some reason you cannot deliver, you automatically start to look for ways to make it up to the other person. Apologies are not enough. Excuses and rationalizations are totally unacceptable. You will not quite be able to live with yourself until you have made restitution. 

This conscientiousness, this near obsession for doing things right, and your impeccable ethics, combine to create your reputation: utterly dependable. When assigning new responsibilities, people will look to you first because they know it will get done. When people come to you for help—and they soon will—you must be selective. Your willingness to volunteer may sometimes lead you to take on more than you should."

I mostly accept the description but I don't obsess over restitution - genuine apologies, if the matter is grave then confession, tend to work for me.

 Belief

"If you possess a strong Belief theme, you have certain core values that are enduring. These values vary from one person to another, but ordinarily your Belief theme causes you to be family-oriented, altruistic, even spiritual, and to value responsibility and high ethics—both in yourself and others. These core values affect your behavior in many ways. They give your life meaning and satisfaction; in your view, success is more than money and prestige. They provide you with direction, guiding you through the temptations and distractions of life toward a consistent set of priorities. This consistency is the foundation for all your relationships. Your friends call you dependable. “I know where you stand,” they say. Your Belief makes you easy to trust. It also demands that you find work that meshes with your values. Your work must be meaningful; it must matter to you. And guided by your Belief theme it will matter only if it gives you a chance to live out your values."

I'm no relativist.

Overall I think the five strengths are accurate of my daily musings and personal and public interactions. This matches with my Myers-Briggs type, an INFJ.

Please be aware that my results won't be the same with other INFJ types. Each person reacts differently (similar isn't the same) in social scenarios and feels differently about themselves, so no two persons are exactly alike. 

The sad evolution of Jenny Grace Makholm.

Over at collegefix.com I encountered a post defending her alma mater, Emerson College. Jenny is an actress who graduated from Emerson with a BFA and now is an actress living in NYC.

As she writes, she came from a devout Christian household where she was taught that homosexuality was a sin. She also had issues with what she was taught about the earth while attending Emerson; apparently whatever she was taught at her Catholic high school made her confused once she took science courses. Here's her entire passionate post that barely addresses how fellow Emersonians treated a conservative student -

 "Emersonian alum here.

No one should be bullied. I myself was a devout christian who had some conservative values when I entered Emerson College in 2000. I was met with nothing but love, acceptance, and a positive college expereince that I will cherish, as well as life-long friends.

The education alone is enough, but honestly, Emersonians have been some of the most wonderful people I've ever met. Almost without fail, if I happen upon a fellow alum in my travels, I make a friend.

I'm so sorry this woman had this experience. That was not my expereince there.

I will say that I entered Emerson knowing that it is among the MOST socially liberal schools on the east coast. Having been raised in a deeply religious household, I didn't exactly know what that would mean.

What that meant for me was meeting and befriending the first openly gay people (now gratefully of many) who taught me so much about LGBTQI rights. After having been taught it was a sin for so long, I actually met and befriended gay people and started really understanding LGBTQI rights from a personal perspective. I learned empathy and understanding. I learned tolerance and humility from them. I now am a happy advocate and ally for LGBTQI folks, and a better person for it.

It meant learning about evolution from the now sadly deceased genius Alan Hankin, who cradled my thirst for knowledge and answered all of my difficult questions (for the first time to my satisfaction in my academic career) with patience and enthusiasm, combating years of confusion I got from religious schools who taught that dinosaurs walked amoung us, or that the world was only 3,000 years old. He didn't shame me, instead he lit an intellectual fire in me that has burned even brighter in my adulthood; science used to hold dubious interest for me, now I am a enthusiast.

I sat in the student center, huddled along with all of my classmates the day the towers went down on 9-11. I watched a student body be shaken and traumatized by those events. We wept together, terrified and unsure of what the future would hold. Emerson has a great deal of foreign students. Among them was an Afghani princess who regularly spoke before 9-11 about the human rights atrocities going on in her country. Many muslim students were unsure what 9-11 would mean to their place at Emerson, tales of hate crimes against people who appeared to be Muslim were on the rise. They were embraced and defended.

I watched a student body argue respectfully about the war that we then entered, all opinions aired and debated. I went from an independant voter who had voted in the past for both Republicans and Democrats, to a politically empowered citizen. I marched alongside my fellow students.

In class, I had the pleasure of being taught by the now deceased Rhea Gaisner. She taught me so many lessons, but among them was that all Art is in some way political-- Art is a reflection of the times; it can't help but comment on the world. I remember at her memorial an old classmate of mine standing up and telling a story about Rhea: "I was sitting in the hallway on the 3rd floor. Rhea walked past me with her ususal speed. She stopped, looked at me, and asked point blank: 'Did you vote today?' To be honest, I hadn't realized that the midterm elections were that day. I made some excuse about absentee ballots or something, which she waved away with annoyance. 'Not good enough! Voting is your duty as a citizen.' And she walked away. I have voted in every election, rain or shine, since."

I could give you story after story about Emerson and how it made me the more educated, more empathic, more creative, more informed, more progressive person I am today. I am sad for this woman's experience, but know that this was not my experience, and not the expereince of all of the folks I went to school with.

I have my qualms with Emerson-- the expense is a huge issue, and the then college President Jackie Liebergott's sometimes VERY contentious descisions.

I'll say this: if one goes to a highly progressive, highly liberal school, as I did, if one is religious as I was or more conservative, as I was, one cannot expect not to have those values challenged, as mine were. I greeted those challenges with some enthusiasm, and some resistence, but I did understand that I had chosen a place where those things would be called into question. In short I had chosen to have my opinions challenged. I had my pick of schools, but I chose Emerson, and I knew that meant I would have to really start thinking about my political and social values-- not change them, but be able to argue them.

If I wanted a place that did not challenge me or force me to evolve and grow, I would have chosen the Christian colleges many of my friends went to. I'm so SO grateful I did not do that."

90% of it is saying how amazing Emerson is and how her encounters with LGBT people and her professors made her into an empathetic, compassionate, informed and progressive person. The other 10% is how the threatened student should've stayed and become challenged. That's all well and good, the encouragement of staying, but it's not entirely unbiased -



Don't let that first passionate post fool you. She's an actress who, when she has time, has decided to fight those anti-SJW, MGOTW, AllLivesMatter people - she's on their side. Now how does a devout Christian, from a deeply religious household, who attended a Catholic high school basically become an LGBT ally (and she's states her life is better because of it) and an atheist? It's a complex answer but I'm sure it's somewhat obvious in Jenny's case. She posted a link to a picture of her back in her Emerson days when another poster was skeptical of her proclamation of being an Emerson alumnus. This is what she wrote about her final year at Emerson:

When our BFA 2004 class graduated, Sara R. and Maragaret put up 14 of these fliers, one for each of us, as a sort of ad for our vacant spots. I changed a lot that year- chopped off all my hair, dyed it blonde, left my fiance, moved in with frat boys, started cussing like a sailor, and drinking like a fish- even smoking a few cigarettes when the mood inclined- the departure from my old habits was pronounced to say the least. I still have my BFA Vacancy poster, oh yes I do.

Left her fiance? Left? Not called off the engagement or broke off. Left. Maybe that's exactly what she meant, but given the "shedding one's old self" tone I doubt it. Moved in with frat boys? I wonder what happened there. Since she left her fiancee there's no need for commitment and dignity, right? Gotta cuss and drink like a sailor because dammit it's my senior year in college!

I'm not sure what age Jenny entered university life, but it's currently 2017. She said she graduated in 2004. 13 years. Let's say she entered college at 18. That would mean she's about 35 yrs old. I don't believe she's married. It doesn't appear she has any kids. After living in Boston for college she immediately moved to NYC and has stayed there ever since.

I also want to say that she appears to be cordial and reasonable when presenting herself. Clearly not so if we take into consideration her "WOKE FOLKS" FB post. I will guess WOKE means white. Or maybe it means "awoke" as is I'm a aware of the - isms that plague the world.

Jenny Grace Makholm before Emerson: devout Christian with some conservative values.

Jenny Grace Makholm after Emerson, 13 years later: feminist, LGBT ally & advocate, atheist, unmarried and childless.

Ms. Makholm is your typical garden variety "progressive" actress in NYC. All she left out is admitting she got her tubes tied.

Hop on facebook and ye shall see the juvenile sophistication of liberals.

If you're on facebook, I suggest to subscribe to pages like NPR, National Review and TedTalks. National Review is a neocon site but it seems to be a prime target for liberals to voice their thoughts in the comment section, sort of like how FOX News is the prime target for every crazed liberal out there to shit on (not that I'm a fan of FOX News).

By doing this you'll get a very, very fine sample of the average liberal in the US of A. They say conservatives are nasty? Ha! That's what I say as an ex-liberal. 

Listen to Glenn because he's a CPA.

I spotted the following on my facebook feed this morning as I quickly scanned through the "facebook junk" (one of my friends lamented about Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement; it was a shallow lament, and the responses that followed were equally shallow) before starting my day. This was the original post that was posted by my peer regarding minimum wage:

Many pointed out it was flawed. It most likely is since it's a meme. But it wasn't the OP that stood out, it was the this response by a man named Glen:

Did you read what Kira wrote? I hope you did. Did you let it sink in? She talked about "basic economics" - sorta like common sense but not really, at least in her mind. I'm not sure what "American economic system" she was taught or read about because apparently, in her mind, the "American economic system" needs an unemployed class in order to function and at the same time the evils that are alive also don't want social programs that help these poor workers. Wait, I've seen this concept before. I find this rather ironic given what Glen said about memes. Kira implies that the American economic system relies on a poor working class as opposed to a more egalitarian economic system like, I don't know, Sweden maybe (I just threw in Sweden because that's the favorite country of many who use the vernacular and tone that Kira does). Let's move onto Glenn's post, a more involved post.

Glen states he has "facts" and by looking at his post he seems he has facts (just look at all those numbers!) but he doesn't. He has a hypothetical situation. Though Glen does most of the math correct he doesn't factor in how a higher minimum wage affects business owners, big and small. He just concentrates on how much milk a poor working class person can buy. This is ironic given the fact he stated he majored in business economics (do you really need a degree in business economics and be a CPA to do figure out the math? No). The biggest irony here is that he is irritated with original poster for posting a meme that supports her worldview (not supporting a higher minimum wage technically isn't a worldview ... but it is to Glen), saying it's a fallacy, all the while pulling the fallacy of authority. Now you should listen to me because I'm a CPA who majored in business economics. Okay, I'm listening. My question, Glenn, have you ever owned a business, and if so are you currently paying your employees the $15 minimum wage?

Of course, Glen's post started off with smugness and ended with arrogance. I got the facts and I have the credentials. Somewhere in between the "facts", which any person with a decent amount of arithmetic skills can perform, there probably is a strong argument for the positive affects of raising the minimum wage. How he goes about doing the math reminds of this scene in *Dave -

 

But the naive aren't aware that it isn't that simple. It truly isn't. It works on an individual level, yes, but federally this type of simplistic approach is juvenile.

If only we listened to CPA's, the "American economic system" would be something oh so much better than it currently is.

The original poster actually blushed when she read his post, admitting that he was an educated man but at least defended herself by stating about the effects of inflation. I'm sure Glen will have a follow up. The effect Glen wanted was achieved: he wanted to feel superior to the meme and her. He built intimidation and shame by flashing his credentials - it wasn't so much about the "facts," since if it were he'd leave out his formal education and address his argument as a counter. If he were a truly educated man he'd address the totality of the argument. But he doesn't. He just does arithmetic.

*Financial literally is extremely important. I advise everyone to learn how to balance their own budget, make necessary adjustments to live within their budget, and restrain from expenses that aren't vital or necessary to their lives.

Whether in your political group or not.

Atheists of the Gnu strain, regardless if they align with your politics, are no friends to Catholics and Christians, even the liberal Catholics and Christians.

Dating preferences in Weimerica.

I've notice something strange when it comes to modern dating and the process of choosing a significant other. Here's what I've observed.

A: Love knows no boundaries* (mainly talking about same-sex coupes and interracial couples).
B: Okay, well what about when a person says he is attracted to a certain ethnicity, say Hispanics over an Asian?
A: That's their preference.
B: Okay, well how about a person who wants to keep their ethnicity/culture intact and only wants to date within their own race?
A: That's approaching racism.
B: Can't it be preference?
A: No, because what I'm talking about is sexual and romantic attraction. A utilitarianism approach is racism. The heart wants what it wants.
B: Okay, what if I say a girl won't date a guy shorter than she is, say all the guys under 5'8 are basically out of luck.
A: Another preference.
B: Wouldn't it be a very shallow preference and borderline petty? If people are encourage to date outside their own ethnicity and culture, when can't women be encouraged to re-analyze their preferences?
A: You're committing sexism. Your utilitarian approach is discrimination.
B: What ethnicity preference and height preference is also discrimination.
A: I wouldn't say that. It's a preference. It's not systemic.
B: Okay, let's move away from dating preferences. How about ACT/SAT scores? You need a certain test score and GPA to not automatically be rejected by certain schools and programs. Why isn't there a whole movement about this? This would be considered systemic discrimination.
A: In some ways that's different as well. But see here - underprivileged kids, those who are/were historically marginalized and oppressed, should not subjected to such measurements. It's unfair.

So I guess not everyone and each scenario is not created equal.

* It has come to a point where the social sciences, and even "science", has encouraged straights to dabble in bisexuality aka sodomy.