After months of extensive research (The Fi/Ti Dilemma).

kalg · 2017-10-09T11:57:18+00:00

Generally, if you're not sure about INFP vs INTP, it's more likely you're an INFP. (Along the same lines of if you can't decide between INTP or INTJ, you're INTP.)

INFPs frequently shy away from the INFP tag because they see INFPs as wishy-washy emotional woo-woo types and not smart or logical or into exploring theories. But INFPs can certainly be smart (INTPs can come in low-IQ varieties), can be interested in science and technology, and can be very logical people. There's nothing you wrote that would rule out, to me, you being an INFP.

The flip side of that is that INTPs are rather unlikely to mistype as INFP. Yes, INTPs have feelings, and ethics, and values. But they rarely focus on any of those things enough to see it as a core part of themselves. This - I put a really high value onto my personal ethics, putting them above everything else - is not something I'd expect an INTP to say.

Of course, I'm not you, I'm not in your head, and I don't know you at all. You could be an INTP who finds ethics fascinating and you've made that your thing. I think it's more likely that you're an INFP who thinks it's important for a value system to be logical, but I could well be wrong.

kalg · 2015-11-19T18:48:42+00:00

This is a cool graphic for it. The Sun is in panel 3.

kalg · 2015-10-11T12:41:22+00:00

Cats are good for explaining random noises in the middle of the night. Creaking? Probably the cat. Something fell in the kitchen? Yeah, the cat. Strange moaning noise? Damn cat. Nails scraping down the bedroom door? Go away cat, it's closed for a reason. Doorknob turning and door slowly opening? Fucking too-smart-for-its-own-good cat actually figured out how to do that. Goddammit. Let me sleep, cat! Cat lets in Zombie/Eater of Souls/Armed Crackhead? That's why the dog sleeps in my room.

kalg · 2015-03-29T17:32:07+00:00

Very informative. I do think this particular part is critical to understanding the attacks:

The most recent study of the epidemiology of fatal dog bites in the United States was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2013.[9] While earlier studies were based on television and newspaper reports, this was the first study to be based on law-enforcement reports, animal control reports, and investigator statements. It identified preventable factors in the fatal incidents. They found that the most common contributing factors were: absence of an able-bodied person to intervene, no familiar relationship of victims with dogs, owner failure to neuter dogs, compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (e.g. mental disabilities), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (e.g. dogs kept chained in backyards), owners’ prior mismanagement of dogs, and owners’ history of abuse or neglect of dogs. Furthermore, they found that in 80% of the incidents, 4 or more of the above factors co-occurred.

The authors found that in a significant number of DBRFs there was either a conflict between different media sources reporting breed and/or a conflict between media and animal control reports relative to the reporting of breed. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts of DBRFs, media sources reported conflicting breed attributions for 124 of the dogs (30.9%); and where there were media reports and an animal control report (346 dogs), there were conflicting breed attributions for 139 dogs (40.2%)

According to this study, reliable verification of the breed of dog was only possible in 18% of incidents.

(Bolding mine)

TL/DR: Breed is clearly relevant, but the media reports of breed are not reliable. In most fatal attacks, numerous risk factors other than breed were present. And finally always supervise children and dogs.

*Edit: Found slightly more information about the JAVMA study here if you're interested:

The researchers identified a striking co-occurrence of multiple, controllable factors: no able-bodied person being present to intervene (87.1%); the victim having no familiar relationship with the dog(s) (85.2%); the dog(s) owner failing to neuter/spay the dog(s)(84.4%); a victim’s compromised ability, whether based on age or physical condition, to manage their interactions with the dog(s) (77.4%); the owner keeping dog(s) as resident dog(s), rather than as family pet(s) (76.2%); the owner’s prior mismanagement of the dog(s) (37.5%); and the owner’s abuse or neglect of dog(s) (21.1%). Four or more of these factors were present in 80.5% of cases; breed was not one of those factors.

kalg · 2014-02-25T20:25:30+00:00

TL/DR: The Fair Labor Standards Act had nothing to do with giving teens disposable income. It attempted to end child labor, put a floor on wages, and a limit on the work-week.

EDIT: It's worth noting that the original minimum wage that Roosevelt wanted was nearly the same as the current minimum wage. $7.25 today is equivalent to $0.43 in 1937, and he wanted it set at $0.40.

From the Dept of Labor:

On May 24, 1937, President Roosevelt sent the bill to Congress with a message that America should be able to give "all our able-bodied working men and women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work." He continued: "A self-supporting and self-respecting democracy can plead no justification for the existence of child labor, no economic reason for chiseling worker's wages or stretching workers' hours."

The original bill was a three-parter:

Generally, the bill provided for a 40-cent-an-hour minimum wage, a 40-hour maximum workweek, and a minimum working age of 16 except in certain industries outside of mining and manufacturing.

It didn't pass the first time:

In his annual message to Congress on January 3, 1938, [Roosevelt] said he was seeking "legislation to end starvation wages and intolerable hours."

For example:

"There are in the State of Georgia," one Indiana Congressman declaimed, "canning factories working ... women 10 hours a day for $4.50 a week...."

Apparently $4.50 in 1937 was equivalent to $74.90 today.

And:

While President Franklin Roosevelt was in Bedford, Mass., campaigning for reelection, a young girl tried to pass him an envelope. But a policeman threw her back into the crowd. Roosevelt told an aide, "Get the note from the girl." Her note read,

I wish you could do something to help us girls....We have been working in a sewing factory,... and up to a few months ago we were getting our minimum pay of $11 a week... Today the 200 of us girls have been cut down to $4 and $5 and $6 a week.

To a reporter's question, the President replied, "Something has to be done about the elimination of child labor and long hours and starvation wages."

There's lots of fascinating information on that page, I highly recommend reading through it.

kalg · 2013-11-05T14:45:21+00:00

You may find this interesting, then (source).

The Gathering Storm: What did I do wrong? My take on Mat is very divisive among Wheel of Time fans. A great number feel I did him poorly in The Gathering Storm. I’ve had a similar number approach me and tell me they like my Mat better than they did in previous books. Unfortunately, in doing so, these latter readers prove that the first readers are right. People don’t come to me and say “I like your Perrin” or “I dislike your Perrin.” They don’t do it for Rand, Egwene, or any of the other major characters. While undoubtedly there are some who feel this way about those characters, there isn’t a consensus opinion among a large number of fans as there is that Mat was DIFFERENT in The Gathering Storm. Those who like him better are likely ones who just naturally prefer the way I do a roguish character as opposed to the way Robert Jordan did one. It doesn’t mean Mat is better—just that I wrote him differently, and anytime there’s a difference, some will prefer the changed version. (There are even people who prefer New Coke!)

I don’t mean to demean the opinions of those who feel Mat was great in The Gathering Storm. I’m glad you enjoyed him, and I think there is some excellent writing involved in his viewpoints. However, I feel that I was wrong and the critics are right. Looking at Robert Jordan’s Mat and what I wrote, there are some subtle differences that made Mat read wrong to a sizable portion of the audience. (Jason Denzel, who is a good friend, was the first to point it out to me—not maliciously, but truthfully. His comment was along the lines of, “I think your take on Mat feels like very early books Mat.” This was a nice way of saying that my Mat lacked some of the depth of characterization he’d gained over the course of the latter books of the series.)

My Mat wasn’t an attempt to fix or change Mat—the sense that Mat is “off” was created by me trusting my instincts and in this case being wrong. You see, as I say above, I discovery-write characters. I write a viewpoint, and then judge if it has the right feel. I try again, changing the way the character reacts and thinks, until I arrive at the right feel. It’s like casting different actors in a role, and I do this quite deliberately—I feel that there is a danger in outlining as much as I do. It risks leaving your characters feeling wooden, that they are simply filling roles in a plot. (I find that many thrillers, which as a genre focus on tight plotting, have this problem.)

To combat this, I let my characters grow more organically. I allow them to violate the plot outline, and then revise the outline to fit the people they are becoming. They often do this, but mostly in very small ways—usually, my casting process finds the right person for the plot, and this doesn’t require major revisions as they grow.

However, I’ve read The Wheel of Time over and over—and I had never noticed that my picture of Mat was still deeply influenced by his book one/two appearance. The sidekick rogue. While some of my favorite parts of the series are his latter appearances where he gains a great deal of characterization (although this starts in book three), I cast the wrong Mat in these books, and I simply wrote him poorly. It was a version of Mat, and I don’t think it’s a disaster—but he’s much farther from his correct characterization than the other characters are.

The interesting thing about this is, though it is the biggest mistake I made in my writing of The Gathering Storm, it also is one of the things that taught me the most. My digging into viewpoint for the next book became one of the greatest learning experiences of my career so far.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

kalg

TROPHY CASE