Blog of Sara Jakša

Email Etiquette

I am usually afraid to send emails to other people. It is not as bad as calling them, but each email I send is usually accompanied with a little burst of anxiety.

The main reason for this is, that I don't want to annoy people. I am trying to stop myself from this, because email is something that people have any right to delete without reading and they can also check email whenever they want. So it should not be a problem to send email anyway.

Because this is a social situation, it is always easier to have some rules of tumb for acting. Which is why I was thankful to my professor, when he recommended my exactly this.

RAND organization published Toward an Ethics and Etiquette for Electronic Mail. There, even in the 80s', they have predicted some of the problems we have with email these days and created a couple of rules of how to write emails.

While the book itself is worth reading (only 48 pages), for the people that don't want to read it, here is the list of rules for the lazy people that don't want to read it. And for me, so I don't need to look for them the next time I need to write an email. Since this should be the bare minimum that each of us should use.

The rules of sending emails:

  • Create single subject messages whenever possible
  • Assume that any message you send is permanent
  • Have in mind the model of your intended audience
  • Keep a list of recipients and cc:s to a minimum
  • Separate opinion from non-opinion and clearly label each
  • If you must express emotion in a message, clearly label it
  • Other content labels are useful
  • Think about the level of formality you put in a message
  • Identify yourself and your affiliations clearly
  • Be selective in broadcasts for information
  • Do not insult or criticize third parties without giving them a chance to respond

The rules for replying to emails:

  • If you receive a message intended for another person, don't just ignore it
  • Avoid responding when emotional
  • If message generates emotions, look again
  • Assume the honesty and competence of the sender
  • Try to separate opinion from non-opinion while reading the message, so you can respond appropriately
  • Consider whom you should respond to
  • Consider alternative media
  • Avoid irrelevancies

The Strength of Multiple Disciplines

Because of a weird quirk in the Slovenian education system, I am currently finishing 2 different master’s degrees. And because of this, I can see the difference between two different programs: one of them being business informatics and the other one being cognitive science.

As you can see from my choice, I am not at all averse of putting different subjects or disciplines together. In the business informatics, it was supposed to be the mix between the computer science and business studies, but it ended up being more a data management and analysis, with management, mostly IT management thrown it. On the other hand, cognitive science is a conglomerate of disciplines dealing with the mind: artificial intelligence, neurology, philosophy, psychology, linguistics and many others.

I have now notices how much the different disciplines can have a different look at the world. For example, when I am making a decision, I can use economic theory. I actually use the arguments that we learned in microeconomics, to convince myself all the time, why the sunk cost is not worth playing out. When I am with other people, I can a lot of times remember, what I learned through empirical phenomenology, mostly through my experience and reading/listening about others. This knowledge of observing my own experience made me realize a couple of things, for example, I don't really have a lot of will power. No wonder I don't trust myself with drugs. Then I can turn around and use what I learn at psychology to try and understand a problem. For example, why there are sometimes failures with short term memories, like we can't remember what happened seconds ago. Then I can turn around again and solve a problem by programing a solution.

I have read before about the importance of knowing multiple disciplines, I just did not take it as seriously as when I started to experience it myself. Now, when I have a problem, I can try thinking like a personality psychologist, economics, businessman, programmer, empirical phenomenologist and so on. Even in everyday life, each of them provides a different point-of-view.

It would help, if I was a bit quicker at this, as it would also help me in social situations. But these have way too many variables, from considering the social norms, history, personality and so on, along with theories from different fields, it is the only time when I most likely have information overload. I am getting better at it, though.

But when I have the time to think it through, then I find at working with the full toolbox, instead of just one hammer.

I does make me wonder about 4 things (more like, my notes could be groups in four things, and each is connected to the topic, so I decided to stick them all in this blog. It is not like anybody is readying this. Because even I could see that I am forcing it a bit).

Openmindness.

In the article titled On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit, there was a difference in different kind of openmindness. One is of reflexive openmindness, which accepts everything. And then there is reflective openmindness, which searches for info as a way of critical analysis and reflection. I do wonder which type of openmindness is necessary for this? Because my first instinct is to go with the second options, but… having multiple perspectives also means that there are always pieces of the puzzle that don't fit. I am not so sure, if something like that is easy to deal with for everybody?

Also, people tend to connect the critical and pessimistic views with intelligence. At least compared to the optimistic ones.

Intelligence

Which bring me to my next point, which is about intelligence. Neil Stephenson did say in his book:

The difference between stupid and intelligent people is that intelligent people can handle subtlety.

Gottfredson talks about how different aptitude learner (so people different by IQ levels) have different learning types. People with lower aptitude do better in highly structured, detailed, concrete and contextualized instruction, which is dysfunctional for high aptitude learners. But on the other hand, the abstract, self-directed, incomplete instruction, favored by high aptitude people is dysfunctional for the low aptitude ones.

Ignoring the interesting face, that nobody is good at anything, the usage of different disciplines does sees something that is not very contextualized, or concrete, and it is not something that can be structurally used, even if it could be structurally learned. So, I am wondering, if this is something, that also more helps some specific types of people and not the other.

Imitators

It is also not a strategy, that is easily imitated. After all, a strategy that involves different kinds of thinking each time is not something that can be though in a month. And I have reads in at least two different articles. One of the reasons could be, that imitators lack this specific type of thinking. I mean, creativity is supposed to be connecting idea in a new way. Imagine what it would be like to connect different thinking types in a new way? Maybe because, when people imitate the solutions, they are generally only imitating the solution, not the process, by which the solution came forth.

So is an advance. I guess this is why I have saved the following quote (which will now be saved in this blog post). You can ignore a bit of Ayn Rand's vibes, that at least I get from it:

For the true source of wealth is not brute labor, or even what you might call brute capital, but the mind. The mind creates new technologies, new products, new business models, new productivity enhancements, in short everything that creates wealth.

What mind is?

Which bring me to my last point. It is important what we think about the mind, and as a cognitive scientist, I can look through it from different perspectives. But I think better that my arguments, at two quotes from Lakoff, which I will present here, as the finish:

Our ideas about how the human mind should be employed depends on our idea of what human mind is.

And another one:

How we understand the mind matters for what we value in ourselves and others – for education, for research and most important, for what counts as a human way to live and act.

(And maybe I am also getting the hang of this philosophy stuff as well. If nothing else, putting random quotes and doing short comments about this was how my last philosophy professor – for philosophy of AI class, was running his whole class. Also, there was a presentation on the last conference I attended that was like that as well. Though my philosophy professors in Vienna were different when lecturing, in a lot more positive way – though even then the things on the handouts were again – quotes :) ).

Facts, Thinking, Behavior and Technology

In the last semester, I have done a small theoretical project on the connection between cognitive biases and personality. This did make me read a couple of books that deals with how cognitive biases affect the decision making. The books went from a bit more negative, like the Taleb's Black Swan and Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow, to a bit more positive, where cognitive biases are the positive adaptions to the environment, like Bardone's Seeking Chances: From Biased Rationality to Distributed Cognition.

But to look on this, there are at least two interesting frameworks, which could be used. Well, they are a bit connected. One of the is extended cognition, the other is enactivism (I would link to something, but I have yet to find a simple explanation of enactivism).

Extended cognition is an idea, that our thinking and our cognition also takes place outside out our brain and body. The extended cognition would be using the phone to remember phone number or using the friend's list on Facebook to help decide to invite to spend time with or using the pen and paper to help with defining and solving a problem or using a conversation with another person to help clarify ones thinking and discover the holes in it. For example, Bardone wrote, that discussion are important for lessening 'bounded' rationality, as it allows for pooling the capabilities. Which is even better, because we have different strengths and weaknesses.

On the other hand, the enactivism is the coupling of the environment and the agents. In most cases I am using this mental model, the agents are humans. What does this mean is, that humans are co-creating the environment and the environment in return is co-creating the humans. There is a mutual loop there. Yes, it does sound, that they are saying, like there is no objective reality. As far as I understand it, they seem to be quite ambivalent to this question. It is just not accessible to us, because of, among other things, sensory limitations. There is at least some information, that we cannot get out of environment (ultraviolet light), but there might be possible information, that we don't even know about. Which is why objective world is not accessible to us.

I know, that I am not clear. But none of the explanations are better. For example, one explanation from Merleau-Ponty:

The world is inseparable from the subject, but from a subject which is nothing but a project of the world, and the subject is inseparable from the world, but from which the subject itself projects.

The important point is the co-dependence of the environment and our cognition. Which is where technology comes in. Technology, for better or worse, changed our thinking. For example, we humans are created to use social clues to make decision. One of the rules that we use, to decide what to trust, is using argumetum ad verecudiam, which basically means that people believe facts, stories and other things because of the authority.

But with the today's technology, we started using this rule for inanimate objects as well. It means that we can end up structuring our thinking in terms of search or it can eventually shape what we know and see about the world. Which is alright, if what is needed is quickly discovering answers to specific factual questions, but not if the question is more like: What do I do with this?.

For creative endeavors, like the upper question, the networks of people are still better than Google. Especially, because for being creative, there needs to first be a foundation of knowledge accessible (Greek muses were thought to be the daughters of Mnemosyne, who was the personification of memory. So even Greek already saw the connection between the facts collected and creativity). But technology can affect how we remember something. The problem is also, that Google (almost) newer says 'I don't know', and even when it does, we don't get the feeling, like it is its fault. It feels, like it would show something, if we would know what to enter in the search box. But this can be a problem, because it integrates in out cognition, that not-knowing is not something, that we should experience all the time, which can reduce the motivation to go deeper is some subject. Because of that, we miss on a lot of potential connection between ideas.

There are also other examples. One example, that I see a lot, is in public speaking. I am sure the public speaking changed with the invention of slides. The slides give the impression that the speeches are a lot more structured and it discouraged any kind of deviation from the plan, or the creativity on the stage. It does not even create a good relationship to the audience, because there is only the interaction, when the slides allow for it. And while I did not see any study or collect enough data yet, but my intuition tells me, that people are a lot less likely to ask question during the speech, when there are slides there.

One another example is the use of excel for data analysis. Excel allowed, possibly for the first time in history, to have numerical data analysis available to most people, regardless of knowledge they had. Taleb calls this the phenomena, where we had become the worse planner than in the Soviet Russians. That is because everybody can put some numbers there, and the spreadsheets will output some sort of answer in most cases. Regardless if the analysis makes sense or not.

But just like putting the fMRI images in the article, makes them appear more scientific, or putting a male name leads to the higher job offers, the same way the statistical graphs and tables can also make the message more completing, even if it is, at least in some cases, less understandable.

In this way, the idea of extended cognition and enactivism are important. They provide the framework to understand it. Why we can look to be a bit less creative, as we are using the things, which have unintended consequences to makes us think more in way of the search, than in a way of connecting ideas (enactivism). Also, there are not a lot of technologies, that one can use to become more creative (extended cognition) – except the pen and paper, but this was already present in Ancient Egypt, so I am not counting this as technology. On the other hand, we are changing our brain by googling things as soon as we miss a single fact, which makes us more likely to have the necessary facts when needed (extended cognition), but because of this our memory changes as well (enactivism).

We are not information processing machines like the computers. Out black box algorithms get changed all the time by technology, which changes our behaviors (outputs) as well (enactivism). And we are using the add-ons in the real world as helping subroutines (extended cognition). So, it is important, which and how do we use our technology.

Communicating through Technology

I have a bit of a problem communicating with people through technology. Face-to-face is mostly fine, I might be a bit nervous to start talking with somebody I don't know, but mostly I can (hopefully) manage to communicate with people in a more or less alright way.

But for some reason, it is a lot more different with technology. This week, I had to send a couple of emails, and I spent more than a day procrastinating on it out of fear. Don't get me started on the phone, where I am always afraid, that I am going to be bothering somebody. Then there is any type of social media, which is just... let's say that I have run away from most of them in one point or another.

And it is not just being afraid of surveillance. If this would be the reason, then I could use encryption and weird ideas like leaving draft messages in the same email account, rather than sending it (example).

I think the problem is instead, that my social skills are most likely still below average, though I have managed to improve them a lot in the recent years. Still, without the feedback that face-to-face communication provides (as bad as I still am in reading it), I never know what the reaction is. And without that my 'OCD' problem comes forth and I continue to ruminate about it. Since I don't like ruminating about my possible social failures (I still sometimes ruminate about some that are at least 5 years old).

This could be the effect of the Technology law of amplification: Technology primary effect is to amplify human forces. The book, where this law comes from mostly deals with forces in societies, but I see no reason, why it would not also apply to me. Since I already need to push myself to socialize in real life, the technology amplifies this force and makes it even stronger. On the other hand, for people that like socializing and are comfortable doing it, I guess it would have a different effect.

This is especially true, since internet use and social capital are connected. The book Smarter than you think goes even further, saying that to take the whole cognitive benefit of the internet often require social work and social capital, though a quick search for a scientific article to confirm it turned out empty. I mean, the phones have changed the social expectations, but I definitely have problems adapting to them. Let this be the bigger flexibility in scheduling the meetings or sending random messages through the day. No matter, that the later can help with keeping track of people and creating a feeling that they are present next to us. Not to mention, I never noticed that social media is supposed to feminize the culture.

Maybe I am simply overthinking the problem. Maybe it is just, that people simply use what is the easiest, and they don't care more about it. But for me, it seems like a mess, where people have expectations, like having the phone on a person the whole time or checking Facebook multiple times a day. It is also a mess of rules, because unlike the formal manners of the pervious times, there are not explicit rulebooks here. It is also a mess, because there are so many different options.

Or maybe my fears as simply connected to the effect each of these has on my experience and on my behavior. I guess, I can simply use a quote from Cal Newport to try to highjack the words of the person better in writing than me:

When I encounter a typical knowledge economy office, with its hive mind buzz of constant unstructured conversation, I don’t see a super-connected, fast-moving and agile organization — I instead see a poorly designed distributed system.

Varovalka

Samo rada bi delila zanimivo vprašanje iz varnosti pri delu, ki mi ga je povedala moja sestra.

Kdo lahko v podjetju popravi varovalko?

  • A: Nihče
  • B: Usposobljeni Človek
  • C: Vsak
Pokaži Odgovor
Varovalke se ne popravi, ampak zamenja.

Krakow Cognitive Science Conference 2018

This weekend, I have attended the Cognitive science conference in Krakow. Cognitive science conferences are a good way to usually find some people, who are doing things, which makes one, at least me, interested in their though process. The other one is to find some interesting work, that are not that weird, but can produce some new ideas. It was even better for me, because this year conference had the emphasis on technology.

The main themes, that I saw in the conference, were the virtual reality and using it for some new ways of doing things, and the second was using machine learning methods to try and get some new insights or solutions.

For me, the most interesting talk was about using the computer mouse to try and measure mind wondering by Mariana Rachel Dias Da Silva, Marie Postma-Nilsenová and Frouke Hermens. They were using the arithmetic and word remembering task. This means, that there was a set of a couple of arithmetical questions, like (8-7)*1, that people then needed to calculate. In this case, the solution was given, and they needed to say, if it was right or wrong. After each equation, they were given a letter to remember. After a whole set, a person needed to repeat the letters and asked whenever they were task-concentrated, mind wandering or thinking about the task. The problem they had, that they did not have a lot of mind-wandering examples, so the differences found so far are tentative.

What I liked about the speech the most, is that it made me realize how bind I still am. Beside the cognitive science, I am also studying business informatics. I am aware of some websites (example: Amazon) supposedly use the mouse movements to help them predict, what the user wants to do. I mean, it is something that got mentioned in class a couple of times. How did I never think about using it in my own research? I mean, just because it is not yet a well-developed methodology in cognitive science, I should not be discarding it.

The second one, that I enjoyed was the poster presentation about the mutual impact on UX and creation of new technology by Tomasz Niedziółka. It was a theoretical work, which basically said that new technologies drive new UX research, which drives new UX design, which drives new technologies. It is a loop. Also, I had an interesting discussion about the work they do with the user design.

The weirdest presentation was about the connection between the virtual reality and art by Jan Argasiński. The work together with one of the Polish minimalist artist. So, they adapted that artists hikikomori art into virtual reality. A person is in a room, and in the windows, there are black dots appearing. Then these dots invade the room though the air duct. Afterwards, the blackness starts invading the places in the room, until some sort of black greenery starts appearing.

According to the talk, their work wanted to test if art in the virtual reality can also induce an emotional response. They succeeded, because people freeked out. When I tried to describe it to a non-cognitive science person, they said that it is a horror room. So maybe freeking out should be... expected? I don't know. I just find the whole idea... can't yet wrap my head around.

The rest of the remaining to me interesting talks could be groups into two groups: using machine learning methods to analyze data and some theoretical work on technology.

For the machine learning, Marie Postma is working on the detection of emotions through different means. One interesting finding is, that when people understand something, for example an old person understanding the medical advice or a child solving a simple math problem, they nod. On the other side, if people don't understand it in these situations, then they move the head sideways. Simon Hviid Del Pin started to use EEG data to try and predict who will wake up from a coma. Magdalena Wiercioch presented a new methods of word embeddings based on synonyms. Kamila Gajdka presented how the schizophrenic people could also be diagnosed with text analysis.

On the theoretical side, there was Maciej Próchnicki and Rafał Michalczak, who were talking about the problems of AI from the law perspective. They support a more bottom up creation of law for technology. There was also Nick Novelli, who used the difference between psychopaths and normal people to show a possible way of when we will know, when machines have emotional states. Which is, when they will be able to not misuse moral concepts and will not have logical inconsistencies in their justification. I also liked the idea of virtual reality of not only being the simulation by Michał Ostrowicki, but I did not like the presentation that much. Maybe because as a non-philosophical student, I don't really like the random quotes on the same topic types of presentations. Even if they are interesting, they seem to me like throwing a puzzle pieces at the audience, and they need to find out what the picture is.

Overall, I think I could get used to attending the conferences like that. If only I would be able to do it without the drive in one direction taking hours.

Addition on 2019-05-30: The proceedings can bi found here: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2265/

Epistemic Curiosity or Different Levels of Learning

When I am reading or when I get an idea, I usually write it down on a small piece of paper. And then hopefully, some day I return to it to do something about it - though there are quite a lot of them. The one that I had this time was about epistemic curiosity. It was a following quote:

'We need to cultivate the "epistemic curiosity" - not a scattered quest for novelty, but a focused disciplined commitment to mastering a new terrain.

It was a quote from the book Curious. Considering that I liked the quote enough, that I wrote it down, means that I ended up reading the whole book. And also an encyclopedic entry of what exactly epistemic curiosity is. For people not wanting to read the 3 page pdf, the edited copy of the definition is posted below:

Epistemic curiosity is the desire to obtain new knowledge expected to stimulate intellectual interest or eliminate conditions of informational deprivation.

That actually made me think about the different levels of how much do I learn about the subject. Let me take the subject of curiosity. One mention somewhere (I am sure Google would find the place I encountered it) lead me to read a book about it. But this was about it. The same is true for some other things. Some of the classes, that I was not that interested in, are also a good example. Like the Information system management, or Grounded cognition and so on. There I listened to the lectures, maybe read a little about it, but I mostly left it alone. I guess this is sort of diverse curiosity, where experiencing something new is the most important. The more for me unproductive way of doing this would be checking the social media feeds.

The second level is where I think epistemic curiosity takes place. This would be, where there is an active search for information. One example of this for me would be the effect of technology on people. Since October or maybe November, I have been listing every scientific article and book that I read. So in about half a year since then, I have read the following books on this topic:

  • Geek heresy by Kentaro Toyama
  • Technically Wrong by Sara Wachter-Boettcher
  • The Filter Bubble by Eli Pariser
  • Life 3.0 by Max Tegmark
  • The future of the mind by Michio Kaku
  • On the internet by Hubert Dreyfus
  • The Coming Robot Revolution by Yoseph Bar-Cohen and David Hanson
  • The Shallows by Nicholas Carr
  • The Aisles Have Eyes by Joseph Turow
  • The Post-Mobile Society edited by Hidenori Tomita
  • Digital dieting by Tara Brabazon
  • i-Minds by Mari Swingle

This means that I have a steady rate of reading, on average, around 2 books about this topic only. And here I am only counting books, and not scientific articles or any other material, like reading blogs while mindlessly surfing on the web.

The second way of doing a second level is a bit more practical. For example, I participated in the emergence of beliefs project in order to learn more about empirical phenomenology. I did a small project in innovation research. In order to learn about computational modeling, I did the project on creating songs with evolutionary algoritms. So it does not have to be only reading, it can be working on something in order to learn something new.

On the third level, in my thinking, is not so much about the depth, as it is the difference between exploring and exploiting. It is the same concepts, whenever we are talking about learning algorithms, evolutionary perspective of personality or even some other fields, that so far did not slap me in the face with it :). This is when the knowledge, collected with the first two levels, are applied to solve a problem. One example is, that I am using theory of reasoned actions and personality to help with with my economic master thesis, that I am currently writing about. The theory of reasoned actions is an earlier and simpler version of the theory of planned behavior, that we hat to use for our group project for Actors, Behavior and Decision Making class (which included doing the whole research). The personality is just something that I am repeatedly reading about.

I call this the third level, not because it is better than the previous two, but because it is impossible to do well without doing any of the previous levels. The same is true for the second level. It is hard to become interested in something, without ever being exposed to it before. And it is the second level, the epistemic curiosity of doing things in order to learn and to accumulate and create new knowledge, that is the foundation of having enough knowledge to be able to communicate about and solve the problems encountered in our world.

Plus, it is fun. In a sort of, I guess, a geeky way.

My Facebook Experiment

I still remember the first time, I have heard a bit more about Facebook and I started to think, if I want to join. I was in the Faculty of Arts, waiting for my Japanese lessons. So that means that I was in high school, my second or third year, which would make this somewhere around 2007-2009-time span. I was listening to two people talking next to me, because for somebody that was socially awkward, the listening to other people's conversation became a way I got information.

One person was explaining to the other, how Facebook was forcing her to invite more people there, if she wanted to continue playing games or reach new levels in the games. I am not sure about the details, but it was that something about the games was blocked, and she would need to invite people to join Facebook to unblock it. Or something like that. I am not that sure, I have no idea how games at any point of time looked on Facebook.

Either way, I remember thinking that this was way too manipulative, and this is the impression that I got stuck of since then. So, every time people wanted to convince me of the good parts of Facebook, inside my head I was always thinking: "Balancing this with the manipulativeness, which one wins?".

It is actually really interesting, that I noticed this years ago, and now it is a hot topics, with people like Cal Newport or Tristan Harris and others talk about the manipulativeness of technologies, and how some of them are designed to be the slot machines.

But eventually I did create it, even if for only one reason, most, if not all, group work for my Cognitive Science degree happened there. But this use was not using it for months, then logging on for couple of days to do the group work, and again not logging for months. It was interesting seeing, that simply because I was on Facebook, some people expected me to see what was going on there (I did not, since one would need to log on them), sometimes even though they would post it like less than a day ago, in one case, less than 3 hours ago.

So then, when I was in Bratislava with my classmates, and since I am interested in how the technology affect people, to see if there is anything up with this and I decided to try to use it more frequently, like a couple of times per day. The quick results, I still don't know why it is so popular.

I managed to be more social with my classmates because of this. For example, I would miss many pink pong games with my classmates, while we were discussing things, if not for Facebook. I would also miss company on the way to class. I would not know where to go to the regular weekly Cognitive Beers, as we called them. So as far as being social, it was helpful.

But the conversations of Facebook way to frequently degenerated in to random gifs postings or something similar. What I learned was, if I don't want to goof off with other people, I should not be using Facebook but for the simplest inquires. And while I don't generally mind that from time to time in real life, it is way too stale and repetitive on Facebook. I would get more relaxation out of watching a humorous show or even reading fanfiction. So, I don't really understand why people think this is a valid communication channel. Unless they don't mind degeneration.

The rest of the Facebook tools ended up being useless. I am pretty sure, that I did not use the event finding on Facebook correctly. It did not give any good recommendations (possibly, because I did not know how to find them) and it was hard to navigate. I have it under suspicion, that events were regulated with the algorithm, but I have no proof. But I have no reason to learn how to use it, since I get, for my introverted nature, more than a bare minimum of events that I need through social channels and meetup. I also don't want to learn how to use it more effectively. I would prefer to learn something a bit more fun, like some new languages, or personality theory.

For the last part, I don't get why people scroll on their feed. I know that mine was completely boring. I also saw some of the feeds of others, and while they were a bit better, they were still stale. So, I don't even get, why something so mindless is considered an addictive problem. Especially because it is framed as an escape from boredom. But I don't get how something boring can be an escape from boredom. If there is some other reason, then I could get it, but this is how it is normally framed.

Also, the one thing that I really hated about it, is that I could started to notice the compulsion to check Facebook. And the fact, that some of my mental energy was dedicated to this, instead to the more productive form, was something that annoyed me to no end. Anything would be more productive than this, but I will take daydreaming any day. I am not sure which factor was responsible for this, but it did happen, and I hated it.

On the end, I am now again not logging on Facebook and I am looking forward to the day, when I am going to pass all my classes, when I can delete it. I could see how socialization can be improved by regularly using it, but the negative effect on my mind is something that I cannot tolerate, so I don't think that I will ever again become a regular user ever again. But I can see, that for somebody that values socialization about their mind, being there would be a good use of their time. But for me, they are being too manipulative in their wish for my mental space, just as I guessed around 10 years ago.

Slovenske Besede za Jungove Funkcije

En od problemov, ki ga sama zadnje čase velikokrat opažam je, da nimam slovenskega besedišča za strokovne besede, ki jih želim uporabiti. Rahlo je verjetno krivo, da je večinoma literatura napisana v angleščini. Na univerzah pa sem v zadnjih dveh letih tudi večinoma izbirala angleške predmete, ne slovenskih.

Glede na to, da so v naši državi nekateri kar preveč navdušeni nad našim jezikom, nekako razumem, zakaj imamo velikokrat zahteve, da je študij na voljo tudi v slovenščini. Eden od razlogov je tudi to, da se ustvari nek skupni jezik za strokovne besede.

No, za nas ostale, pa nam ostane ali branje v knjigah, ali pa pogovarjanje z ljudmi, ki imajo znanje tega skupnega besedišča. Tako da tokrat, bolj za moj zaznamek kot ne, so tukaj zbrani prevodi, ki sem jih prevzela po knjigi Psihološki Modeli in Teorije Osebnosti.

Slovensko ime Angleško ime
Čutenje Sensing
Čustvovanje / Vrednotenje Feeling
Mišljenje Thinking
Intuicija Intuition

Torej, zdaj ko govorim z osebami, ki niso tako seznanjene z angleško literaturo s tega področja (ali pa ne znajo tako dobro angleščine, ampak teh je zelo, zelo malo), imam zdaj besedišče, s katerim lahko to opišem. Čeprav bo zanimivo videti, ko bom uporabljala besede, kot so introvertirano vrednotenje. Ali pa mogoče bi bilo še bolje reči notranje vrednotenje. Pa zunanjo mišljenje. Glede na to, da sta introvertirano in ekstrovertirano izraza, ki jih večina ljudi pozna, bom pri teh dveh besedah verjetno stala pri tem, čeprav se mi zdi, da bi uporaba besed notranje in zunanje bila bolj opisna.

Za konec pa bi si rada zabeležila še dva citata iz te knjige, ker se mi zdi, da sta dober kratek opis funkcij:

Čutenje (senzacija in zaznave) predstavljajo najprvotnejšo funkcijo doživljanja, prvotno reagiranje posameznika na zunanji svet. Tej sledijo mišljenje kot tolmačenje čutnega, čustvovanje kot vrednotenje zaznavanja in končno intuicija kot  neposredno zavedanje oziroma doživljanje odnosov.

In še drugi citat:

S čutenjem zaznavamo to, kar je aktualno dano, mišljenje nam omogoča pomen danega, čustvovanje to dano ovrednoti; intuicija pa nam slednjič pokaže vse možne odnose izvornosti in smotrnosti, ki obstajajo med neposrednimi dejstvi.

A Language Game

When I was at the exchange in Bratislava, a Vienna classmate of mine presented an interesting game in one of our lectures. It is sort of a language game, where people try to create a new kind of language representation. I am sharing the game play below, in case it would also help somebody else. Though, I must admit, that part of it is also, that I will remember it.

For the start of the game, for each pair, there needs to be cards with one-word concept written on it. We used the words justice, athlete, sports, goal, school, house, justice, democracy. Each one of the pair gets one set with all the words written out once.

One person in the pair takes the first card and starts drawing the concept on the piece of paper. The other looks at the cards and shows the one that they think is right. The goal is to do it as quickly as possible. If they guessed correctly, it goes on the discard pile, if not, it goes back to the original pile. The game is going on, until there are on card on the original pile. They the people change places and repeat, this time in different roles. This goes back and forward, until there are no mistakes left.

The last rule is, that while the game is in place, nobody is allowed to say anything.

For the next part, the pairs get changed. Each person gets a new partner. And the whole process is repeated. Which does produce some interesting effects. But I will let the people play it to figure out what they are.