Skip to main content
Post a Comment

Structure Creates the Response


I sometimes use tools to analyze my websites, two non-technical tools in particular are TypeAnalyzer and GenderAnalyzer.  TypeAnalyzer returns the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) classification, while GenderAnalyzer returns the gender.  The more interesting of the two is the MBTI classification; I am not surprised that my written presence is easily discerned as male.  From what I understand, most persons' FaceBook posts are easily classified.

My usual, as in almost always, MBTI classification is INTJ, so I found it interesting when my social sites, Twitter and FaceBook, showed me to be ISTJ.  A little surprised, I tried a few other of my sites, LinkedIn and Google+, which both were classified as INTJ.  From there, I just kept going:

ISTJ:  Twitter, FaceBook
INTJ: Google+, LinkedIn, Algorithms
INTP: Interiors, Foxes and Hedgehogs
ESFJ: LastFM
ISFP: GoodReads
ESTJ: Amazon (my reviews)
ESTP: LifeHacker

Although it is conceivable that my social presence changes to fit the site, I intuit that the structures of the sites lend themselves to particular interaction styles, at least from me.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews
Post a Comment
Read more

A Journey — if You Dare — Into the Minds of Silicon Valley Programmers

My responses in a NY Times comment section for the book, Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World by Clive Thompson : #1 - Link Although I've been a software developer for 15 years, and for longer alternating between a project manager, team lead, or analyst, mostly in finance, and now with a cancer center, I found it funny that you blame the people doing the coding for not seeing the harm it could cause. First, most scientific advancement has dark elements, and it is usually not the science but how it is used and sold by business people that is the problem. This leads to the second problem, in that it is not coding that is in itself problematic, but specifically how technology is harnessed to sell. It is normal and desirable to track users, to log actions, to collect telemetry, so as to monitor systems, respond to errors, and to develop new features, but that normal engineering practice has been used to surveil users for the purpose of selling. Blaming
Post a Comment
Read more

Don't learn to code. Learn to think.

A response to  Don't learn to code. Learn to think. : Below is is my usual response when I see an article stating that everyone should learn to code:  Rather than programming, it is more important to impart the thinking of computer science (CS) than a specific implementation. Programming can be an end point for some students, but it is likely that programming itself will be increasingly automated, so that one needs more the general concepts common in CS. Even then, programming itself is to some degree a grunt task that one progresses beyond:  The following are typical components of a CS degree: algorithms & flowcharting systems thinking logical systems and set theory object-orientation & patterns probability, statistics, mathematics All of the above can be useful in an increasingly automated and data-driven world.
1 comment
Read more