Skip to content

Master Directory of Articles

OK, this is a major shakeup of all my web space. I’ve been breaking up erictb.info, realizing that the clusters of articles on the main pages there is basically too cluttered, so I had begin by making separate pages for major essays, and now, I decided to drop a bunch of them here, and list everything to date, by category.

Entertainment and media


Interests

Personality, Typology and the Human Experience

Math, Science and Technicalities


Travel and Transit


RELIGION AND POLITICS

Christian Doctrine

Numbered Streets in New England?

In a similar vein to a true “Main Street” in NYC [previous entry], it should be mentioned that while New York and most other cities will have extensive prominent inner city numbered street systems (Brooklyn has several systems: East, West, North, South, Bay, a few named after an area ⦅Paerdegat, etc.⦆ and plain ⦅no prefix⦆ streets and avenues (making up Borough Park). Queens was turned into one big street and avenue grid, with a smaller one prefixed “Beach”, in the Rockaways), New England and upstate New York generally do not.

Springfield has a tiny 1st and 2nd St. out in the outskirts. This is the way it is for most other New England cities. (like the reverse of the “Main St.” situation in NYC). Just beyond this is next town Chicopee’s tiny 1st and 2nd Ave which are perpendicular. Westfield has a tiny 1st St. that meets an A St. at a corner, in the outskirts.
New Haven has a 1st-6th St. in a small two block wide grid right where West River empties into the Sound. (The I95 runs right between 5th and 6th St. but you’d of course never know it).
Worcester has a little First-Fourth St. also on the outskirts.

South Boston and Telegraph Hill have a small numbered (and lettered) grid (E/W 1-9 St. and A-P Street) of medium length streets; the largest in the multistate region. The next place after that is East Providence, with 1st-10th St. Next after that is Stamford, which has fairly short 1st-8th north of downtown.

Hartford doesn’t seem to have any, so Google directs you to this tiny system in neighboring New Britain (short 1st-8th). Nearby Bristol also has a very small 1st-6th. For Bridgeport, it at first pointed to Fairfield (1 block 1st, 2nd and 3rd), and then Stratford (1st-6th Ave. on the Sound).

Now this was very wild.
Bridgeport does have its own little numbered system (3rd-6th St.) it missed for some reason, which is off of Seaview Avenue (again, a somewhat outerlying area), and just as I was appending all of this info, and looking at the map, just a mile up the same street, this huge, huge, HUGE fire was erupting, with mushroom clouds of flame, and showed up on the news right after I had finished looking at the maps and moved on.
So today, having heard the fire was on Seaview, and looking up and down that street for where exactly that was, I see the numbered streets, and find
I had passed by them twice on my NY-Springfield By Local bus trip http://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/new-york-to-springfield-ma-by-local-bus (both the aborted first try and the second successful one), as the Coastal Link bus goes down Stratford Ave. Trying to remember remembering seeing a couple of numbered streets there. Seems a bit familiar now, with the fancy looking blue street signs.
The “warehouse” burning, which was up closer to US1/Boston Ave. consists of these one story buildings that on Street View look like they were already for the most part gutted, and surrounded by empty space, and empty trailer bins. Perhaps more had been added since the Street View was taken. It was said to be perfume tanks and drums and a roofing factory fueling that inferno.

S. Portland, ME has a short 2nd, 3rd and 6th St. Also, close by, A-F and Q Sts. (Nearby Peaks Island has a 1st and a tiny 3rd that meet at a corner, and a tiny 2nd St. on the other side of the island). Manchester, NH has just a tiny 1st Ave. on the outskirts.

The adjacent upstate New York fares a little better, but not much.
Albany has a 1st, 2nd and 3rd St. just north of downtown (they each run about two miles, though), and Buffalo has a very incomplete numbered system (4th, 7th, 10th, 14th-19th, with everything between them named).
Rochester has a 1st-8th St. that are mostly just two blocks and was very easy to miss on Google. Syracuse also had 1st-7th, which are near the NY State Fairgrounds, but this seems to be really out in a neigboring town (Solvay), but Google (both the map and the serach) considers it part of Syracuse.

In Westchester, the first county outside the city heading upstate, you might not usually think of numbered streets, but some are there in a few places.
Yonkers has just a 1st St. (of it’s own), near the Bronx River. It actually enters the Bronx as Vireo Ave. Right near where this street passes, Yonkers also manages to get the very tips of the city’s E241st and E242nd St., which enter and run into McLean Ave at an angle (240th seems to end right at the border which is by that time on McLean as well).
Another Yonkers street a few blocks further up then becomes a realigned E241st when it crosses the river and enters the city in the section of Wakefield that pokes up into Westchester.
New Rochelle has somewhat small 1st-8th St. west of downtown; while Mt. Vernon, wedged inbetween the two larger cities, consists mostly of a numbered E/W street and S/N avenue grid. (Some of them cross the border into the city, instantly becoming Bronx streets, including the Wakefield E241st and 242nd). White Plains doesn’t seem to have any numbers at all.

Staten Island also has a small numbered system (1-9 Street) in New Dorp. and an even smaller 1-4 Ct. on the beachside near Annadale, and numbered avenues and lettered streets in the College of Ststen Island. 5th St. was omitted in New Dorp (that’s where the train station plaza is), but Hagstrom shows one not too far from the beachside “courts”, as an extension of Allegro st. off Poillion Ave. into Blue Heron Park. In Google, there’s nothing there, but a tiny dead end right north of there, and in Street View, Allegro just ends there at a wooded section that looks like it may possibly once have been a street, while the other dead end looks like a driveway for some sort of house or church there.

The Bronx, while again continuing Manhattan’s number grid (with the crosstown streets, and Third Ave), also has two of it’s own little separate number grids; 1st through 12th Avenues; including a second 3rd Avenue, over near where the Main St. is., and 1st 2nd and 3rd St, with Avenues A-F, in Hunts Point on the Bronx River, away from the main numbered grid. (The main 3rd Ave. addresses start in the 2000’s, while the Throggs Neck one are under 100).

Newark looks like it doesn’t have numbers, but there is a sizable grid of streets and avenues to the west, away from Downtown. (There’s also the numbered system beginning in Jersey City right across the river from Manhattan, that almost line up. (like the Lincoln Tunnel goes out under W39th St., and on the NJ side, the highway leading to it, wbich has the same alignment even after the Helix, is between 30th and 31st St.)

What is NYC’s real “Main Street”?

In New York, I grew up used to a crisscross pattern of numbered streets and numbered or lettered Avenues, and the biggest thoroughfares usually named after places or people.

The other sizeable city I went to, Springfield, MA; the primary “avenue” is “Main St.” (and the primary perpendicular one radiating out of the center of the city was “State St.”)
The next sizeable city I would encounter, every five years, would be Richmond. Its backbone was “Broad St.”, but there was a slightly smaller “Main St.” right next to it (which we used to get to the Poe Cottage in Shockoe Bottom). Norfolk had one as well. I once saw an old picture of it, when it looked more like the others, with the standard 75-100 year old smaller storefronts, but the entire area had been replaced with the standard modern skyline. (The perpendicular Granby St. was similar; Norfolk seemed to originally have an odd L shaped central business district, and Granby for the most part kept its old character). Farmville and other small towns’ primary business district roads were usually Main St. too.

Reading maps, and following roads like Broadway (US9) and Boston Road (US1), which supposedly went “all the way” to Albany (or even Canada) and Boston, respectively. I found that when passing through towns, they often changed their name to “Main St.” and then changed back once past.

Even LA, which seemed such a far cry from the old small towns and cities of the East, had a Main St. (Though you don’t hear about in on TV as much as Hollywood and Sunset Blvd’s and even other streets like Crenshaw, Wilshire, etc)

It seems like Main St. is something almost universal in populated places. In fact, it has become the trope of average everyday America, often used in contrast with the powerful “Wall St.” or “Madison Av.” or even “Pennsylvania Avenue” and “K Street”.

So it seems like another one of those things that sets New York apart from evewhere else. The “city” proper; Manhattan island, has no Main Street. Growing up in Brooklyn, I never encountered one either, and the Bronx, as a continuation of the Manhattan Streets, didn’t seem to have one either.
As it was, NYC was already different from most other cities in not having a simple business, with the rest of the city radiating out from it. Manhattan island was the initial “New York City”, that in 1898 incorporated a whole other city (Brooklyn) with its own downtown and radiating main throroughfares and street grids, and three other counties and their towns. Even on Manhattan, the CBD became split between “downtown” (containing the government and financial centre), and “midtown”, containing the entertainment/media/pop culture (including fashion, etc), shopping and main tourism districts. The general “offices” in big office buildings of corporations, law firms, etc. were divided between both areas.
The areas between them were likely skipped because they did not have the bedrock to support the larger more densely packed construction. (Hence, why they ended up having so many 150-200 year old little houses, like the ones long vanished in Five Points, which got wiped out by downtown’s expansion).

So the city really has three centers of businesses with accompanying skylines: downtown, midtown, and Brooklyn. (And now, Long Island City, across the river in Queens, is becoming like an expansion of midtown).

I found a technical “Main Street, New York, NY” had been forged on the little satellite island, called Roosevelt Island, which was placed on the “Manhattan” side of the river between that borough and Queens. Living there a year, I actually had Main St. NY, NY as my address.
But I knew this was not a real city “Main Street”. It’s not apart of the city grid; it’s only connected to Queens, roadwise, and the island used to be for hospitals and such, and only had the residences added in the ’70s. It’s like it was done to be “cute” or something; but it’s really this little island’s own Main St., not the city’s.

(In passing, 125th St. was dubbed “Main Street, Harlem, USA”, at least in an old Kurtis Blow rap about the street).
In actuality, other major cities Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and Washington DC don’t seem to have a Main st. either. (In Chicago, Michigan Ave. seems to hold that place, and in Atlanta, it’s Peachtree St. and Pennsylvania Ave. is called “America’s Main Street”).

In Philadeplphia, it’s in Manayunk, which looks like a separate town later annexed. Likewise, in Boston, it’s in Charlestown, which was a separate town annexed in 1874 (and didn’t fully take on Boston’s city functions until the 1990’s).

I eventually find that Brooklyn does actually have a Main St.; a small two block poorly paved over cobblestone street that was technically “downtown” like Main St. should be, but in a canyon of loft buildings and next to that really old warehouse with the steel shutters in this isolated waterfront industrial part of it I never went to: down underneath the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges (“DUMBO”). This was once a more active area, when the waterfront and ferries were more prominent in city life, but then the center of activity moved more inland, with Fulton St. taking on more the role of an old Main Street (And Flatbush Ave., the main thoroughfare of my area, being sort of like a newer counterpart to it, running perpendicular to the newer parts of the borough).
They’ve been moving to make the DUMBO area more of an attraction, with plans for the waterfront, and many of the factories convarted to lofts, and some new buildings as well.

The most prominent “Main Street” in the five boroughs, is Flushing Queens. This is the most like the traditional Main Streets, as being the main thoroughfare, and is long (running to the county administration area in Kew Gardens) and busy. In fact, the corner of Main and Roosevelt Av. looks like a small piece of midtown Manhattan. The street is commonly known, in the Transit field (and hobby) because it is the terminal of the 7 line.
The borough of Queens remained set up more like a suburban county with individual “towns” or townships (the postal addresses even go by these), so Main Street belonged to the town of Flushing.

Staten Island’s “Main Street” belongs to Tottenville, way on the extreme other end of the island from St. George, which is the seat of the county. (It too, as NYC’s most suburban bourough, in some respects retains it’s individual “town” setup, though it’s not as prominent as Queens, because it’s not as big, and it’s primarily those two towns and Port Richmond, while the whole center of the island is suburban).

Bronx also has a little Main Street in a very remote corner of Throggs Neck, on the Long Island Sound. This too is out in a more suburban area.

My interest in this was raised, when studying the Five Points of Manhattan, and seeing how streets had been renamed. The main drag in New York; the backbone of the city would be the most famous street, Broadway. That is sort of the practical counterpart to “Main Street” for NYC.
I learned that the Bowery pretty much served as the “Main Street” for the lower East Side (such as the Five Points). Below Chatham Square, it pretty much became Park Row, or what was known as Chatham Street back then. (Later, attempted to be extended further down into running into Pearl St, but this section was renamed St. James Pl.)
It seemed even more like a traditional Main Street, having really old buildings. (It was also once apart of Boston Post Road, and thus truly sort of like the East Side’s counterpart to Broadway).

So I wondered if either of these may have ever been called “Main Street”. Like if Broadway was, since there’s also an East Broadway and a West Broadway, then maybe they would have been “East Main Street” and “West Main Street”. NYC would have really sounded like other cities then!

But I could find no evidence of that. Not even in the original old Dutch names.
So if not those two, I wondered which street would have been considered Main St. (or why if none ever was).

It was when running across the “Old Streets” site, which came up when trying to find out when the streets were de-mapped, fusing the two halves of block 161 to block 165 (Columbus Park extended to Worth), and block 160 (reducing the Five Points to today’s “Two Points”), that I ran across an apparent actual former “Main Street” listed for Manhattan!:

http://oldstreets.com/index.asp?letter=M

Main Street. Mentioned in Minutes of the Common Council for August 3, 1812. Apparently part of the present Mercer Street.

You can actually see the text here:

https://archive.org/stream/minutesofcommonc07newy/minutesofcommonc07newy_djvu.txt

“A Petition of John and James Beekman stating that they were
owners of Lots N 51 52. 53. 54 fronting on broad Way, and of Lots
N 81. 82. 83 & 84 in the rear of the same fronting on Main St and
also of sundry Lots between Spring St and Broom St that upon a late
survey they find those Lots are deficient owing as they are informed to
a mistake of the former Street Commissioner in marking the corners
of Spring Street and Broom Street”

Mercer St. runs next to Broadway (to the west) from 8th to Canal. Hence, it shares all of its east side blocks with Broadway. It’s a somewhat narrow, one way (southbound) mostly cobblestone street, and is not a main commercial strip, but does consist mostly of storefronts (mostly tendy “Soho” type shops in really old, mid 19th century loft buildings), or at least other businesses. (At it’s nw corner with Canal is Canal Lighting, where I always check for the latest LED bulbs and other lights. Above Houston, it’s the eastern boundary of the NYU campus. My first true kiss, with my future wife, was near the corner with Waverly).

Can’t tell which block it was on, as no block number was listed, and the lot numbers for each block are now all mostly under 40. (So they changed, as I saw that the lot numbers had changed on block 160 in Five Points). But assuming these guys’ properties were all in the same area; possibly the same block, it must have been near Spring and Broome.

A “Mann St.” was similarly listed from 1821. (Probably a misspelling. If their source is the Internet Archive like in the link, those were probably OCR scanned, and Main and Mann are obvioulsy close, visually).

This site http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/mercer-playground/history reports “Mercer Street, directly to the east of the park [a little playground between Bleecker and 3rd], was laid out prior to 1797 and called First Street and Clermont Street. By 1799 it was renamed for physician and soldier Hugh Mercer (c. 1720-1777).”

Still, we don’t know if the whole street was named one way or the other or not. (The section they’re referring to is on the other side of Houston St). Being that it was once “First St.”, obviously it is reflecting a time when the Manhattan was still set up like individual towns with their separate grids (the main grid was laid out in 1811).
Still, if a part of Mercer was in fact Main St., considering that Broadway, as stated, is NYC’s practical “Main Street”; I wonder if there was some sort of connection. The fact that at least a part of it was once “First Street” possibly indicating it once being important or a very early center of the area.

These maps http://www.codex99.com/cartography/images/nyc/ny_1803_lg.jpg (1803) http://exhibits.library.duke.edu/exhibits/show/mappingthecity/intro/item/21065 (1817)
seem to show the whole thing named Mercer. Though in the first one, when it gets down to Broome and Grand, you’re entering the marsh of the stream or canal leading to the Collect Pond (of Five Points fame). So who knows what this was about. (Could it even have been an early road between Broadway and Mercer, that was de-mapped at the time and still referred to by the owners? Most of those lots probably weren’t even built up yet. Probably just one of the earlier alternate names still used by the landowners).

The Real Cause of all the Hatred Toward Obama

Seeing some people on Facebook rail on against Obama and Obamacare, acting as if their whole lives (and the nation) are ruined because of his policy, and thinking how these people so disclaim “racism”, yet are unaware of the “Shadow” (which is the unconscious; so of course they are unaware); I decided I needed to further articulate on how this works.

People identify with their forefathers, who settled and built up America, and share their VALUES. (There is likely a “participation mystique” involved, where people today introject almost wholesale, the values of the fathers as their own, at least partially unconsciously).

•The settlers mostly believed a “Manifest Destiny” that authorized them to capture the land and build it up with slave labor.
•There was a great outcry against this, and it was forced to be ended.
•People holding on to the original values (including the privilege afforded by their race) appealed to the Constitution, and claimed their rights were being violated.
•Ever since, progressive forces have been demonized by those most strongly waving a banner of “patriotism”.

Obama is both apart of the progressive wing of politics, as well as being a member of a people whom the original “values” declared not even worthy of freedom, let alone holding the highest office of the nation, of all things!

Today’s patriots are in a bind, because they grew up in generations where blacks were free and gained equal rights in theory, so they have learned to live in society with them and [in theory] accept them as equals. But they still feel an allegiance to the values of their forefathers.
So to begin with, they see many blacks are still dysfunctional and blaming racism for it (which they figure has changed, and so should be “gotten over” already), so they begin making character judgments on “the community” to begin with. (Which conveys a kind of superiority supposedly based on the “facts” of crime and other statistics, with themselves assumed to represent the “par”. Their counter-criticisms to all claims of “racism” become “they should do something about their own killings of each other, rather than complain about others”. Hence, the focus on “Chicago” and “Detroit”).

Yet “racism” is now frowned upon, and looks bad in the public eye. Yet they feel parts of “the truth” are being suppressed as “racist”.

Hence, no matter what he does, or how much his policies even compare to other liberal Democrats before him,* Obama has taken on a connotation of “evil” that is totally unjustified by the factual data. It’s purely an archetypal evil that they are not even aware of (archetypes are products of the “collective unconscious”), and they try to rationalize it with facts (like his ACA is SOOOO “radical” in a fiscal and an “authoritarian” sense, compared to what anyone else has EVER done), but it just doesn’t add up in reality.
When they look at him, they are seeing something else. He embodies everything they see as “unAmerican”. It’s just this deep resentment, that was already there, and only filled out with stuff he’s done they don’t like.

*(And many leftists can argue he’s pretty conservative! Like bailing out the auto giants instead of Detroit, and several other policies. The conservatives simply change their tune, and condemn him further as a “sociaist” for these things, while they previously upheld the principles behing them, such as “trickle down” theory)

I see people talk about how all their freedoms are ending, but I do not see them saying they’re foreclosing, losing their house, car and everything. You hear about unemployment, but it’s usually not the same people doing most of the complaining (which include wellpaid political pundits and candidates).
They’re all still living this cozy American life. Some are even retired, or at least further along in their career, and not dealing with job market difficulty. (And thus often use their own testimony of “pulling themselves up from scratch” as private business owners to compare to all these people they see as getting a “free ride”).

So what are they talking about? What exactly is this ACA program doing to them, personally? They’ll point to what we’re “heading” to, but that’s up in the air. What affect this is having on you is angering you so much NOW?

What it looks like, is if Obama is a valid president, then the forefathers, the founders, the authors of the Constitution etc. are all proven wrong on several fronts, and the patriots aren’t ready to accept this.
So he becomes (sneeringy) “Soetero the Kenyan”.

(They’ll hold up black conservative leaders, but when one of them got close to nomination, other GOP leaders dug up dirt on him, and got him out of the race. Another one, years ago, possibly sensed this coming and refused to run).

Another big part of it is because as this article points out: “America’s first black president was expected to usher in a new era of racial equality.” He then goes on to blame both Obama and Holder for “the bonds that hold Americans together becom[ing] more frayed, and us becoming “more polarized and more divided along racial lines than the day you took office”, solely because of their “recklessly accusing your opponents of racism”. They have single handedly “turned back the clock on race relations in this country” and now “We are all worse off as a result, and weaker as a country”. (In that vein, you have this). Never mind the people with the slogan “2012: Don’t Re-Nig”. I guess since that was the second term election, the damage had already been done. Obama and Holder made those people coin that slogan and carry it around. They couldn’t help themselves.
Another one mentions “the signs comparing Obama to an ape, the lynch posters, the Confederate flag unfurled in front of the White House”, which someone then defends as having nothing “to do with the chaos he has created on our border, his lack of action against ISIS, running guns to drug dealers in Mexico, and his IRS targeting political opponents”, and that “Calling people names is part of our 1st amendment rights”; and while assuring us that the racist names are “disgusting”, they are “not nearly as bad” as Holder Sharpton trying to “railroad” Zimmerman for being “half white”.

No matter what he does; how much he actually compares to other liberals, Obama has taken on a connotation of “evil” that is purely archetypal, and unaware of. When they look at him, they see something else. He embodies everything they see as “unAmerican”, including the spots on the nation’s “exceptionalism”

These people for one do not understand the unconscious, as well as the fact that racist sentiment has thrived in the form of blaming blacks for economic programs (“they just elect people who give them ‘freebies'”, etc.). All anything Obama and Holder (and Sharpton who he then also mentions) and the “promise” to unite the nation (e.g. by improving race relations) may have done has done is at most stoke people’s guilt; bring it to the surface.
So people who had long stuffed their sentiments have this subconscious reaction (“What you do mean ‘unite’ us?! We’ve already given blacks equality and more”. This then leads to the feeling that the tables have now turned, and in fact, blacks are being favored, and white males now oppressed, or at least the “minority”. While you can try to blame Obama for Limbaugh and others saying that, you can hear such sentiments going all the way back to the 80’s, and culminating in the 90s’ “angry white male” backlash. Obama or Holder were not nationally known enough to have created that!

So while they figure they have already yielded and conceded enough, if not too much for the cause of racial equality (and thus should, if anything, be given something back for it), the guilt is there, because the sense of “American exceptionalism” being marred by historical race relations and reproved, in favor of people trying to unfairly get a free ride has been under the surface the whole time. (He aso claims the hatred of Holder is solely “everything to do with your failure to explain how the United States government provided guns to Mexican drug cartels that were eventually used to kill Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in 2010.” (But the “Fast and Furious” plan this is referring to was actually a George W. Bush policy; from before Holder was in office! And isn’t that similar to the old Contra scandal under Reagan that the Right justified?)

This latter issue I am seeing a lot, of “the border crisis” is perhaps the biggest thing that has become tagged on Obama (but I too saw how conservatives were already screaming about it before Obama got in office), and thus directly tied into the fear that they are quickly becoming the “minority”. This likely caries with it an underlying fear that what was done to African slaves, and native Americans, including the Mexican tribes, will be done to them. They are so anticipating this, like getting themselves ready for it, by seeing it as an already starting trend in every news story that touches upon race or immigration. This is a large part of why they see Obama as a foreigner who has come to measure this judgment upon them. Even though, again, the border policies they are so upset by were in place before him; it’s like the see him get into office, and then look up and see all these people coming across the border, and then put those two things together, and add them to the old issues of “welfare”, and there you have it; they’re finally trying to get us back for racism. But of course, we’ve already made our amends for that, so they must really want more. They are the ones who want to wrongly take what’s ours now!

People in the comments of the two linked articles acually claimed “He would love nothing more, than to open wide the borders, and inundate this country with the masses of uneducated, unvaccinated hords of people from South America, south sudan, or any other place where there are masses of people with no education, no skills, and their hands out. He would love to weaken and destabilize and ultimately bankrupt the US by taking care of people that are not the US’s responsibility. He is an American hating vengeful, infantile, thin skinned Marxist radical! He wants open borders, because he does not believe in our nations sovereignty. That is the only thing that is transparent about this president.”

When oce commenters simply accuses the author of the article (who is black) of being a “sellout”:
“you are pathetic, brainless, racist slug for suggesting that someone has a responsibility to their ‘people.’ Martin Luther King would shake his head in disgust at you for placing a meaningless physical characteristic such as skin color over the content of one’s character. You are a prisoner of your pigment, powerless to think as a human being. And you insult all blacks to suggest that they behave as a mindless zombie like you, driven only by skin tone, not a brain.”

So now, all of King’s work is reduced to that one statement, hurled back at blacks, yet doesn’t figure when people want to scold the black community as a whole. The division is clearly, already on the table. (another commenter even pointed out that what the author was doing amounted to Pee Wee Hermans “I know you are, but what am I”? “This is not a conciliatory opinion piece, it is full of the accusatory phrases and condemnations that Christie takes offense to himself. Rather than seek cooperation, he relishes the fight. Rather than mitigate that which he claims to despise, Christie just adds more fuel. THAT is hypocritical. It’s like saying “stop calling me a jerk, you stupid jerk.”)

Another one:

“There are names for blind, hateful, ignorant black sheeple such as yourelf- Gives a true definition of the word- Niggr. You still be on the plantation- boy! You carry your chains around as surely as you mimic what your government masters tells you to! You will always be slave, because you dare not free your soul!”

So, in a topic whose whole premise is that racism is over and a black leader is the one fomenting it, this person sees a green light to hurl no less than the “N” word at someone. (And as if simply omitting the “e” really means something).

Yet again, from last month (see http://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/racial-rhetoric-becoming-worse-it-seems/#comment-1941):

“They seem to want to flaunt their racism while denying it at the same time… They are not racists, but are ashamed of their racism. All the hate…is just confirmation. Hate against blacks, liberals, democrats…Obama, and anyone else who does not accept the conservative view of the world. But they are not racists.”

“Enigmatic” types

Old forum post, and I thought for sure I had made an article out of it, but I guess from early ’11 it was before I began the blog, and by the time I did, and started posting on type on it (which was after awhile), I had forgotten it. (Did include the term in the Glossary, though). What I was probably thinking of, was the “Type Binary” article (http://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/type-as-binary-code), which covers some of this.

I believe that the “enigma” witnessed in some types is due to the disparity between personal vs impersonal factors in some of them.

Personal (relational): Feeling, informing, motive focus
Impersonal (task): Thinking, directing, structure focus

For the FP’s and TJ’s, all of these line up.
It is the TP’s and FJ’s where they do not all line up

STP Thinking, directing, motive focus
NTP Thinking, informing, structure focus
SFJ Feeling, informing, structure focus
NFJ Feeling, directing, motive focus

All Feeling types are informing except the NFJ’s.
This is perhaps why they have taken on the biggest reputation of being “enigmatic”.
Feeling is usually connected with the “responsive” people-focused social skills Keirsey dubbed “role-informative”, yet this one pair of types still manages to be role-directive like most Thinking types.
Directive is more than just issuing directions, though they probably do that enough. Keirsey, in Portraits of Temperament identifies it as “defining the relationship”. Basically, it’s an attitude of “don’t call me; I’ll call you”, as described for the corresponding “low Wanted Inclusion” in the FIRO and APS systems.

Hence, the types seem a bit aloof, distant, and perhaps unapproachable to most, even though they are still a Feeling type, and an extraverted Feeling at that. This (coupled with the misty introverted iNtuition that tends to make them directive in the first place).

All Judging types are structure focused except for NFJ’s
Likewise, structure vs motive is sort of “directing/informing” on another level (conative action and leadership skills instead of social interaction skills), and Judging is usually structure focused (fitting people into structures such as organizations or plans), but this one pair of types manages to be motive focused (take into consideration why people do what they do, in order to work with them. This factor identified by Berens, connecting SP with NF and SJ with NT).
Hence, the types still have an inner warmth, inside of the intuition and outward spunk of directiveness.

So basically, NFJ’s are task-focused where we would expect them to be more people focused; and people focused where would expect them to be task focused.

All Thinking types are directing except the NTP’s.
These types are probably considered “enigmatic” as well, and a big part of that is probably the “informing” nature making them a bit softer than other thinkers. The biggest result of this is many struggling with the T/F dichotomy and being confused with NFP.

All Perceiving types are motive focused except for NTP’s
This also creates an interesting mixture, of the non-seriousness and openness of P with the seriousness and tough-mindedness of T. As I pointed out in the Glossary, they can move back and forth between being very serious and analytical, to being very light and silly.
So they too are task-focused where we would expect them to be more people focused; and people focused where would expect them to be task focused.

The S’s don’t get the tag of “enigmatic”, but here’s the disparity as it continues onto their side:

All Feeling types are motive focused except for SFJ’s
All Thinking types are structure focused exept for STP’s.
All Perceiving types are informative except for STP’s.
All Judging types are directive except for SFJ’s.

It’s like S concretizes the judgment function/interaction style/social image match. So F is informative and T is directive.

Now, with the new “Cognitive Styes” concepts and associated tandem names, these “enigmatic” types all fall under the “Aligning Assessments” preference category, while the “consistent” ones are “Ordering Assessments”. “Ordering” even sounds like something that would go along with “consistency” (It “Defends Potential”—STJ/NFP or “Advances Reality”—SFP/NTJ), while “aligning” implies things that are different that need to be lined up (and thus “Enriches Reality”—SFJ/NTP or “Differentiates Potential”—STP/NFJ).

Various Typological and Life experience thoughts

Sensing and iNtuition and people’s value

Tangible/intangible (S/N) extends to people, who are both tangible bodies, as well as intangible ideas or concepts. The term “person” means “presence” or “mask” in a play. A person’s “influence” can spread way beyond their location in space (where they are now) or time (their lifespan). Internally, they can be thought of as a collection of memories that builds their sense of identity.
The tangible body is the most easy part to recognize and “locate”, so it often becomes what’s used to define the person. It’s also the most vulnerable, being easy to destroy, and the rest of the “person” is dependent on it to maintain recognition as a person, and communication with the rest of us, at least in this universe of physical space and time. (And even with “faith”, there’s still an element of uncertainty as to what happens after we die).

Women, for instance, want to be accepted for the concept of who they are (subject) rather than strictly the tangible body (object). On the flipside, this can start by realizing that they are tangible creatures whose bodies have a tangible purpose (their physical life, and the gender specific organs for reproduction), and not just the conceptual images (of attraction, conquest, etc.) men project onto them.

Thinking and Feeling and true justice

Introverted Thinking (Ti) favors a symmetrical tit for tat system of justice, where for every action, there is a reaction. This is what the “when every sin is judged” idea of divine justice as promised by futurist Christianity appealed to when I first became a Christian.
Yet after awhile, especially when my tolerance of problems seemed to wear even thinner (and some of them seemed to get even worse, making me feel totally dehumanized in life), this sense started coming up, that this would “justify” the initial offense. In other words, if the end is “good”, then “the end justifies the means”. This is often suggested by those trying to teach “hope” in suffering. “God is doing it [or at least “allowing” it] for a good purpose”. They often put it forth in an impersonal, “matter of fact” way.

But this violates a more “personal” or “humane” (F) perspective (which naturally tries to gain the attention of the ego as it develops), that says people should be treated in certain ways simply because it’s “right”, and the end does not justify the means. You can’t always undo some evil by covering it up with some good. (And such a philosophy will often encourage people to do evil and buy their way out of any culpability).

~~~

The dominant functional perspective leads me to expect the world to act according to internal sense of logic, especially as it directly affects me. When I see someone else experiencing some setback that brings back a painful memory for me (or even something hypothetical I might fear happening), I “personally identify” with them (whether they feel as strongly about it or not). This is the definition of Fi, but I’m not really “using” the function in any differentiated sense. It is not necessarily a “daemon” constellation, or even a right brain “crow’s nest”, (though enough one-sidedness of the dominant demand for logic, or emotional trauma associated with the memories, might trigger those things. It may be something that stemmed from the younger period when the Crow’s Nests responses were natually more common; but then later on, the tertiary is used more instead).

Less differentiated forms of T/F products

The world operates from a legalistic sense of “give and take”, or expense and benefit. (“transactional” view as opposed to “transformational”, and would also represent a lopsided undifferentiated “T” perspective; i.e. not specific to Thinking types and the conscious T decisions they make).
There’s a saying I’m seeing going around “Power isn’t given, it’s taken”. To “take” power is counted as “expense”, or “delayed gratification”, that is rewarded with benefit later on; no matter how bountiful it may be.
To fail to rise up and “take” power is assumed to be undelayed gratification, and so the supposed “path of least resistance” taken is presumed to be the “benefit”, then to be followed by the “expense” of living on the bottom of the ladder.

What people who seem to believe this ignore, is the role of factors such as personality type (where the act of “taking power” comes more naturally to the ego, and thus IS more of a kind of “gratification” than a real “challenge”), as well as simple fate, meaning being in the right place at the right time; having the ability, etc. (like as an extreme example, if you were mentally challenged, you would not have been able to make the achievements you can claim).

If the truth be known, people are not as much the masters of their own destiny as they think.
This parallels the religious concept of “works-righteousness” versus grace.

~~~

The negative sense of “destruction” in the universe (and thus, the whole “power” issue) stems from the value we put in things (undifferentiated F). Like we may see a black hole rip up a star and fling the planets into darkness, and we subconsciously put ourselves in that place and imagine it happening to our solar system. Since we depend on it for our existence, it conveys a very negative sense of “destruction”. The same with animals devouring one another, which is even closer to home.
We realize this is simply the laws of the universe at work (where the more energy something has, including through more mass, the more it can affect other objects) and then put this all together into an overall principle of “the strong survive”, which people then use to justify the actions of themselves or institutions they identify with, or to trash the physical universe as “fallen” and in need of replacement with a new universe.

But it’s really our own perception, as the Fall account shows (i.e. “who told you you were naked?”)

This raises the question of what the ideal “unfallen” perspective is like? Would we value anything in the world, sinc that seems to be the source of [emotional] pain? Or would we be able to just shrug and say “oh, well” whenever things are destroyed, including other people? Or, we would feel the pain, but it wouldn’t effect us as it does now? (I guess it really is all about the guilt).

Jesus Christ INFJ/XXXX Analysis

It’s been said that anyone who’s “visionary and compassionate” gets types as INFJ. I discussed this here, for yet another common famous example of this: http://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/stevie-wonder-infjistp-analysis and others commonly mentioned, ranging from very “good” to very “evil”, are Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Hitler. So Jesus Christ also gets included here.

The Christian theorists I first learned temperament theory from, Tim LaHaye and the Arno’s, don’t seem to mention a type for Jesus, and I’m pretty sure, as conservative evangelicals, the reason they don’t is the same reason I don’t believe in doing so. We believe Jesus is God, and as temperament is apart of the created order (animals have simple versions of the temperaments as well, as Pavlov determined), and are caused by various “needs” connected with our limited existence.

While the factors that make up temperament likely stem from “sensitivity” to stimuli in the brain, they also come out as traits such as fears.
Introversion/extroversion (expressed Inclusion), can be linked to fear of rejection. Expressed Control might similarly be tied to fear of failure.
The wanted (“responsive”) scales deal in fear of intrusion or control by others.
The one temperament that’s “neutral” to these factors; the moderate Phlegmatic, ends up having a low energy reserve, precisely from not being driven in those areas.

Jesus was not motivated by fears, and neither had any problem with low energy (and the resultant sluggishmness, etc).
People also try to type God (i.e. the Father), usually with an opposite result, such as ESTJ, ESTP or ENTJ (all Choleric types), since He’s so “controlling”. But they’re looking at Him through the lens of human imperfections.

And of course, I believe “type” theory connects directly to temperament through the Keirseyan and Interaction Style goups.

If Jesus seems so iNtuitive and Feeling, then perhaps it’s simply reflecting the one-sidedness of the people he was dealing with.

God would represent undivided reality (possibly the perspective Jungians would associate with what they call “the [larger] Self”); unlike limited (and “fallen”) human egos, which divide reality into opposite poles, and then usually choose one pole over another.
So in taking on human flesh, the Son of God immersed Himself into at least four of those poles: the dimensions of space and time. Yet He was totally free of the other poles man fell into; representing their fallen state; such as political and even religious and moralistic divisions.

So likewise, the cognitive divisions; Israel of that day and age seemed very STJ; much like conservative “Christian America”. They were “Guardians” of tradition (internalized comprehension of point by point experience; like their meticulous breakdown of the Law), and the efficient, impersonal means of achieving what they thought would bring in the Kingdom. (Rules, procedures, punishments, political dealings, etc.; often highly “technical”, that often ignored true “personal” or “humane” concerns).

So an NiFe perspective would be suppressed to the deepest Shadow. Hence, Jesus speaking in parables regarding future meanings (Ni sort of products) knowing this would hide the meanings from them. And focusing on human souls more than a self-serving agenda.
Hence, in filling in their STJ blind spots, he came off as an NFJ.

One could obviously find all of the other functional products in his dealings. As Creator; He obvioulsy can deal with the impersonal (T) properties of the universe, as much as the personal (F), and of course, the tangible (S) as much as the symbolic, parabolic (N). And both attitudes of each function as well! Neither the Fatheror Son would have any reason to prefer any pole to the other. again, if they seem to, in their dealings with man, it is reflecting the one-sidedness of the people being dealt with.

If one must assign Him a temperament, I would create a sixth temperament. Where would we place this? I would take the e/w matrix and curl it into an object called a “Clifford torus” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_torus), which is actually the true hypothetical shape of a 2D video game field like Asteroids. You take the square 0-9 matrix, curl it so that w=0 (the bottom) meets w=9 (the top). Now, if you try to join e=0 (left) to e=9 (right) to make a familiar “donut” torus shape, you’ll crunch one side (into a hyperbolic shape) while stretching the other (into a sphere-like shape).
This step must be done in 4D, where it’s still “flat” like it was when we started, and thus the dimensions won’t be distorted.

All four corners, which are the most energized areas of the temperament (compulsive), will come together at a new common point, or we could add in a new pair of scores; e=10 and w=10; and e/w=10 is where the new temperament would be. Perhaps the missing “Phlegmatic Compulsive”? It like Phlegmatic would be “neutral” to the various needs, not having a preference for any of them, yet have maximum energy.

I’m not really being serious here; but it shows that He does not fit on the human temperament scales.

Modern Temperament vs Classic Temperament factors

Reading Personality Junkie’s new book (My True Type) and how it mentions Jerome Kagan’s Galen’s Prophecy, which is the premier book on modern mainstream temperament theory, and how he mentions one of them: [high/low] reactivity, in addition to a similar factor from later research: inhibition/unihibition (both of which Drenth connects to I/E), this got me interested in connecting the modern theory to the ancient one. Another common version uses nine factors outlined by Thomas/Chess and Birch.

I think I once did try to connect the nine factors (for children, basically) to classic and typological factors somewhere, but couldn’t readily match anything consistently, so then set that aside, but recently had been thinking of it again.
I discuss this, because many people today will dismiss classic temperament as some ancient myth, like the astrology it was once remotely connected to, and then point out that the valid “temperament” theory recognized today is the nine factors for children.
But classic theory is based on the expressiveness × responsiveness matrix (originally in terms of moisture), and as we’ll see, it looks like these dimensions have simply been split and refined in this newer theory.

So the notion of four (or by extension, five) temperament types is associated with this old, outmoded theory, and the modern one uses “Traits” without making types out of them (just as the official Five Factor Model theory, which is the one that has the most respect in the larger “scientific” field of psychology). But what’s not usually said is that this modern theory did derive “types” from the factors! (Albeit an incomplete matrix).
They are called
easy
difficult” and
slow-to-warm-up“.

Here are the nine factors and how the three types are determined:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperament

http://ohioline.osu.edu/flm02/FS05.html

http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/temperm.htm

mood, (positive=”easy”, negative= “difficult”, “slow to warm up”)
activity, low=”slow to warm up”
rhythm, regular =”easy”, slow to warm up; irregular=”difficult”
approach/withdrawal (Initial Reaction), positive=”easy” negative=”difficult”, “slow to warm up”["withdraws on first exposure"]
adaptability, high=”easy” slow=”difficult”
intensity, low/moderate=”easy”, low=”slow to warm up”, high=”difficult”
attention span,
distractibility,
sensory threshold

Now it looks like these can fit the categories of expressiveness and responsiveness.

So it seems reactivity then (which seems to closely correspond to “sensitivity” or “sensory threshhold”), as I/E would correspond to Galen’s “hot/cold”.
Activity, approach (initial reaction) and distractibility (And by extension, persistence/attention span) looks like it too, as they all deal with the response to the outside world (which will set the distinction from the internal world), and thus “response-time delay” and “expressed behavior”.

Now looking for the other factor, “moist/dry” (people vs task), Adaptibility, Intensity, and Mood all seem to fit a more “positive/negative” response that woud shape “wanted behavior”.
Regularity, at first glance doesn’t look like it fits, but then since it’s about “routine”, that can shape wanted behavior as well (since the high regularity child will want less disturbance to his routine, and the low regularity child will be more open to change).
Kagan added another factor, for infants who were inactive but cried frequently (distressed) and one for those who showed vigorous activity but little crying (aroused). This also seems like it might fit responsiveness.

The four factors used for the three types were the ones likely associated with “wanted behavior”. The “slow to warm up” was is basically a “difficult child” with low activity specified (the only instance of an “expressive” factor being used), and said to be fairly regular rhythm [in the last link].

So the three look like partial portraits of Melancholies and perhaps a Phlegmatic.

This looks like how they could match:

expressed Inclusion: activity, initial reaction, distractibility, attention span, sensitivity
wanted Inclusion: mood,
wanted Control: rhythm, adaptibility, intensity

Also worthy of mention is the Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis® (T-JTA®) https://www.tjta.com/tjtafaq.htm which unlike other “temperament analyses”, seems to be a more “standardized” and “in extensive use as a diagnostic instrument” that is designed for use in individual, premarital, marital, group, and family counseling.

It also has nine dipolar factors (and what they seem to line up with):

Nervous / Composed (wI)
Depressive / Light-Hearted (wI)
Active-Social / Quiet (eI)
Expressive-Responsive / Inhibited (eI)
Sympathetic / Indifferent (wI, wC or perhaps T/F)
Subjective / Objective (E/I: wI)
Dominant / Submissive (eC/wC)
Hostile / Tolerant (wI/wC)
Self-Disciplined / Impulsive (eI/wI or J/P)

The pastor who married us said he used this with us, but I don’t remember any of these; all I remember was Type A/B (She was A; I was B).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.