elainegrey

I don't think it's that noticeable without the before and after, but "before" is more dishwater and "after" more red gold. Brown? Blonde? I dunno. It's just enough, like cleaning the baseboards. One doesn't necessarily notice noticing the baseboards, and yet it makes a little difference to a room.

I have no doubt what i want to write about here on DW/LJ. Partly it is my place to talk to myself with other folks welcome to listen in. If anything, journals that seem to be to a specific audience always leave me feeling excluded as not part of that set (not the group that goes to the con, or participates in certain events, or all socialize together or whatever).

I started with other short-form social media as a early adopter, curious about what folks would do with things. At this point, i feel like i am a content consumer more than a participant in FB, Twitter, LinkedIn, Diaspora, Google+. A good part of this has to do with identity and naming and control of content: on FB and LinkedIn, i am in my public self mode. With G+ and Diaspora there's a little more control of who sees what, like here, and so i could let down my hair (if i hadn't cut it all off).

Resurrecting my Elaine Grey twitter account has let me bleat some of my distress in short form, instead of here, and i welcomed the handholding i received in response. Twitter has so much volume, though, that i can't use it the way i did early on, which allowed me to meet up with brian1789 and mactavish on short notice. That is, i can't follow every post in real time to find out, cool, so and so is free for lunch, and lo, so am i!

I find myself wondering what i should post on the various short-form social media. I used G+'s location service when i went to the concert last Friday. I'd used a lot of the locative services early on, before the services took off, and determined that i really do live in a rut between office and home. I play with the idea of challenging myself to, once a week, post that i'm free for lunch or tea either in MV or San Mateo on a specific day. My hesitancy is asking myself should i use the social spoons with the people who have asked me out for tea or lunch and i've been too busy?

If you are connected to me on a short form service, do you have any advice about what i should post?

What do you think is useful for professional networking? A ratio of one personal thing (concert, creation, cat photo) to one professional thing (observation about tech)?

I should ask my (ex)boss about what "they" say about social media and job networking.

I follow all the services, delighted to find out what folks do, how they live, what they think. I know "Be your authentic self" is the best advice. But i am so ... scattered? diverse? eclectic? inconsistent? unpredictable? ... or boring? Too asynchronous and replying far later than any "conversation".... (Thank you weofodthignen for also being asynchronous!)

I don't think i'll be able to travel to NC for my father's retirement (aka "Freedom") party. I wish i could be there, but i have to weigh it against the potential cost of another depressed winter. The work travel coming up in the next six weeks exhausts me. I'm mad about it, but ... sustainability is important.

Meanwhile, its an over cast Saturday morning half way through this four day weekend and i am uncomfortable. Uncomfortable at the thought i will be travelling in a week. Uncomfortable in a number of dermal locations* (although the acute discomfort of my ring finger upon waking has waned). Uncomfortable in my mouth and gut (what happens if i shut down the acid creation in my stomach too much?). Uncomfortable at the thought of the team building exercise using the Birkman.

Let me just start poking at the damn thing. (I could explain why personality assessments are a trigger for me, but i'll just say it's very hard for me to take them with the lightness that i think most folks can.)

The "Summary One" on page 4 ( One page of three infographics )

I have a lot of questions after this first page. The document seems focused on going to detail instead of defining "indirect communication." Oh, the blankety blank "encryption" means one can't search for the term, even by cutting and pasting the "encrypted" term. Instead, i am being guided to twelve pages of "personal strengths and needs." The first page is a useless bit of advertising matter that doesn't really explain the concepts of usual style, stress, and need. I am finding the omission of documentation for these key terms to trigger the pseudoscience flag. Myers-Briggs has a theory, behind it at least. (The Birkman people claim to be better than Myers-Briggs because they have nice statistical distributions.)

The first content page basically says the following with full sentences, bullet points, and silly graphics. The graphics are silly because they seem to show a linear scale, yet there is also a vertical bar thing going on with the extremes having high bars and the middle low bars. Is this just trying to emphasize "more" and "less"?

"One-on-One Relationships / The Birkman word for this is Esteem" (direct quote, which i find to be weird phrasing):
STRENGTHS: You are straightforward, unevasive, matter-of-fact
Need: a balance between frankness and respect
Stressed by an imbalance (too frank without respect, too much "respect" without frankness)
If you are stressed you need to avoid being too sensitive and too blunt.

( TEN MORE PAGES )
OK for each eleven components, there are three separate dimensions. I think this works by simply asking you the questions about these thirty three dimensions and giving you back the answer. They might have three probes for each dimension: 100 questions seems about what i remember.
I suspect a design like this means that if you have a bias in your reporting, you will likely get your bias back. (Which matters for me when it comes to my triggers.) Also, i'd wager there is some correlation to current experience that shows up. I know the Myers-Briggs can drift a good deal: i suspect this can, too.

Having read through all this i am rather dismissive of the process and conclusions. There are "components" where i think the original bias of the test (Army pilot trainer noticing differences, developing a test of those difference (1950) , then going to grad school and getting a degree (1960)) shows up. I don't know that the length of the test can measure realistically the 33 dimensions reported so far. Now i can read the summary page which seems to produce a description of me that is somewhat familiar yet not quite right and frame the dissonance.

I do think i self report some dimensions forcefully, and that comes through this test as a stronger need or preference.

Ok, having studied the three measures for all eleven components, i can guess at some of the magic grid structure is derived. There were also a great deal of job preference questions that go into informing the grid, as well.

I've spent a great deal of time on understanding this test, but i now feel i "get" it and can play with it in the team building exercise. But, wow, i am impressed by some of the weird framings this system spits out. "Slavish processes," "unnecessary group events": who would find those good things?

* My scalp around my temples seems to be a new flare area; it's also possible issues are developing around the back lower scalp. Ring finger seemed to be heading for remission and just invisibly dry and scaly; woke to blisters and a "hot itch." Area A is at its larger extent, uncomfortable, but i think under control. Latest lotion may be not as helpful.