![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Power of Mu
As previously evidenced, one of the most pervasive elements of my posts is their spontaneity. This isn't necessarily because of an oversight on my part -- I simply operate on no buffer.
Unsurprisingly, this was my same strategy in college and my early career. The results have, well, been a bit humbling.*
I find I'm of a rare breed (No, not just a gold dragon. -Ed), in that I'm a rationalist with a purely intuitive base. I operate best when I make things up completely on the spot, or when I draw from sources that are relatively close at hand.**
The problem with this is flatly obvious. Because I draw on information of close proximity, I can be a complete and utter dunce when it comes to any test of depth. And because I look at problems as a matter of simple, closely-coupled components, my mind fails to retain the deeper nuances.
The result is a reasonably skilled, often competent person who utterly fails at articulating himself. Yes, that is the sound of me headdesking while trying to form this post.
This is the "mu" I speak of. Given my propensity for little information, I draw upon nothingness, starting with no assumptions and fueling my intuition with only the data close at hand. Based upon these, I select the most rational, obvious answer -- and often overlook the more nuanced ones.
What I do not know, is whether this speaks to inexperience, or to my desire that the world be a fundamentally simple place. I have found that taking the material, translating it into my private journals, then returning with the distilled, researched result tends to be better for everyone involved.***
This leads me to question my strategy of information storage and retrieval. Given the context of a suitably-geeky dragon with a tendency to ramble, would it be more correct for me to select obvious answers and address common problems, or should I build deeper wells of knowledge than my shallow base of experience?
The good news is, in either case, my lack of experience has spurned me to act on this. What falls to question is whether I act correctly.
--
* Let it be said that I'm far better off now than I was then.
** True to form, the dichotomy of "rationalist" and "intuitive" is borrowed from an unnamed party. You know who you are.
And for the nerds in the audience, the following paragraph is me failing to explain how my mind works on a breadth-first search of ideas, even in cases where depth would be more appropriate.
*** An insight into my journaling structure at home and at work:
It revolves around an ordering of three buffers: my main log (organized errata, todos), my day log (unorganized, idea-linked notes), and my project log (time tracking and down-to-the-minute information on where I spend most of my time).
These are generally presented in three splits of an Emacs window, and looks something like this:
My writing revolves best around this spread.
Having my Todos and Time Habits split to the left (nearer my poor eye) and my unstructured notes to the right (in 20/10 vision) genuinely helps me. There is also something to be said about how each eye is processed by the left and right lobes of the brain, but I'll leave that off the page for now.
Unsurprisingly, this was my same strategy in college and my early career. The results have, well, been a bit humbling.*
I find I'm of a rare breed (No, not just a gold dragon. -Ed), in that I'm a rationalist with a purely intuitive base. I operate best when I make things up completely on the spot, or when I draw from sources that are relatively close at hand.**
The problem with this is flatly obvious. Because I draw on information of close proximity, I can be a complete and utter dunce when it comes to any test of depth. And because I look at problems as a matter of simple, closely-coupled components, my mind fails to retain the deeper nuances.
The result is a reasonably skilled, often competent person who utterly fails at articulating himself. Yes, that is the sound of me headdesking while trying to form this post.
This is the "mu" I speak of. Given my propensity for little information, I draw upon nothingness, starting with no assumptions and fueling my intuition with only the data close at hand. Based upon these, I select the most rational, obvious answer -- and often overlook the more nuanced ones.
What I do not know, is whether this speaks to inexperience, or to my desire that the world be a fundamentally simple place. I have found that taking the material, translating it into my private journals, then returning with the distilled, researched result tends to be better for everyone involved.***
This leads me to question my strategy of information storage and retrieval. Given the context of a suitably-geeky dragon with a tendency to ramble, would it be more correct for me to select obvious answers and address common problems, or should I build deeper wells of knowledge than my shallow base of experience?
The good news is, in either case, my lack of experience has spurned me to act on this. What falls to question is whether I act correctly.
--
* Let it be said that I'm far better off now than I was then.
** True to form, the dichotomy of "rationalist" and "intuitive" is borrowed from an unnamed party. You know who you are.
And for the nerds in the audience, the following paragraph is me failing to explain how my mind works on a breadth-first search of ideas, even in cases where depth would be more appropriate.
*** An insight into my journaling structure at home and at work:
It revolves around an ordering of three buffers: my main log (organized errata, todos), my day log (unorganized, idea-linked notes), and my project log (time tracking and down-to-the-minute information on where I spend most of my time).
These are generally presented in three splits of an Emacs window, and looks something like this:
| Main Log | Day Log |
| Project Log |
My writing revolves best around this spread.
Having my Todos and Time Habits split to the left (nearer my poor eye) and my unstructured notes to the right (in 20/10 vision) genuinely helps me. There is also something to be said about how each eye is processed by the left and right lobes of the brain, but I'll leave that off the page for now.
no subject
I have found that taking the material, translating it into my private journals, then returning with the distilled, researched result tends to be better for everyone involved.
then isn't it probable that you already know the answer?
Personally, I'd enjoy hearing both the refined and the unrefined versions - and one thing that I find useful for my own part is to share my unrefined responses, and refine them through subsequent conversation in comments. But if that doesn't work for you, then the idea of refining things in your personal journal seems like it would be useful, as long as it doesn't induce the kind of stalling response that keeps you from saying anything at all.
no subject
It's simply something that's difficult for me to confirm when, for upwards of a decade or two, my primary audience was composed of people who did not appreciate research and the associated delayed response.
For now, I'm happy to be writing again. All concepts of refinement are completely out until I hit my stride again -- at which point, I'll see which posting method I prefer.
no subject
I appreciate, FWIW.
For now, I'm happy to be writing again. All concepts of refinement are completely out until I hit my stride again -- at which point, I'll see which posting method I prefer.
Yeah, that sounds like the most sensible way to go about it. I'd agree with you on that one.
no subject
Keep going. Search deeper. This will push you to connect other ideas further in, and find the nuances which you have neglected to this point.
I think what has been happening is that you have been living in an ocean, a veritable sea of information. Taken out of that sea, your reserves are limited. You write well (it gives you time to ramble around until you find what you're looking for and can say it), but you need to deepen your sea, so that others are less able to take you out of it (and thus you can find what you're looking for with better speed if it's not immediately obvious).
Get your plumb bob and test your own depths. Stir up the muck beneath you and see if the water clears. You'd be surprised how far you go.
If you think of yourself as a city, you have spread out widely. Build up, into the sky: reach for your dreams -- your old dreams, the ones you set aside, the ones you wish you could remember better. And dig down, into the ground: find your roots, find your depths, find the bedrock on which you can build. The one supports the other; the other reinforces the one.
Know thyself. It is the best advice I ever took, and perhaps the best advice I can give to someone in a situation like yours. When you know to the utter limits who you are, then what you should do will be open to you.
no subject
I will, quite appropriately, reflect on this. We'll see what happens.