Describe Yourself

Freebase Dali · 02-24-2013, 02:24 AM

I don't totally believe my own fabricated self-image. I think self-images on their own are probably inherently flawed, because they're based on the assumption that other people think the same way you do and have the same information and emotions about yourself that you have, which is never. I can only judge how I come off to others by their reactions to me, and since we're dealing with how other people may see you, I think that's relevant. So, using that as a basis, I can say that I'm easy to like and get along with. I've never had an enemy (that I know about) in my life. People enjoy my sense of humor when it happens to come through, but I'm not a comedian, otherwise I would get that sort of reaction often.
I'm outgoing when I'm interested in a topic. Reticent when I'm not. That goes to say that I'm pretty selective about what I'm interested in, and my level of social engagement is highly dependent on the subject being discussed.
While this is more of an introspective analysis, I can verify it by judging the reaction people have when communicating with them during these moments.

I'd say people see me as highly interested in particular things, and only really engaging and dynamic when I'm discussing those interests. Other times, I may seem reticent or even withdrawn, but personally, it's just because I can't feign excitement if I'm not excited. I mean, I can, but I just don't find it very productive unless I'm trying to manipulate someone, which is not something I do all the time or for any nefarious means. I'm talking about social manipulation in terms of making someone feel better about a situation I may feel completely different about.
Otherwise, I prefer coming off as boring rather than to pretend I want to talk solely for the sake of the person across from me. That's usually my default position, but is highly dependent on my mood at the time.
I think this has a tendency to make me come off as either socially inept or an ass hole in some cases, although I'm speculating on that point, which is irrelevant to how other people actually feel, so that is neither here nor there.
But I do know that alcohol makes that go away. I'll talk your ear off about whatever you want to discuss, and I'll be happy to do it.

Finally, I don't think the internet is an appropriate representation of personality AT ALL. The impressions of me I get on the internet are pretty weird. I know people say I'm intelligent and all that, but I'm of average intelligence. I may be more logically inclined and less emotionally bound, and I may utilize proper spelling and grammar, but I'm a standard, every-day guy. I speak FAR less fluently than I write. I'm horrible at math. Never did well in school. Etc... I think impressions on the internet are more in line with an individual expectation rather than the reality of the matter.
I do pride myself a bit on being able to analyze and put concepts together and use them in a coherent way to a logical end, but I think that is (or should be) the norm.
And I guess that's where your perception of that comes in.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 02-24-2013, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

I don't totally believe my own fabricated self-image. I think self-images on their own are probably inherently flawed, because they're based on the assumption that other people think the same way you do and have the same information and emotions about yourself that you have, which is never. I can only judge how I come off to others by their reactions to me, and since we're dealing with how other people may see you, I think that's relevant. So, using that as a basis, I can say that I'm easy to like and get along with. I've never had an enemy (that I know about) in my life. People enjoy my sense of humor when it happens to come through, but I'm not a comedian, otherwise I would get that sort of reaction often.
I'm outgoing when I'm interested in a topic. Reticent when I'm not. That goes to say that I'm pretty selective about what I'm interested in, and my level of social engagement is highly dependent on the subject being discussed.
While this is more of an introspective analysis, I can verify it by judging the reaction people have when communicating with them during these moments.

I'd say people see me as highly interested in particular things, and only really engaging and dynamic when I'm discussing those interests. Other times, I may seem reticent or even withdrawn, but personally, it's just because I can't feign excitement if I'm not excited. I mean, I can, but I just don't find it very productive unless I'm trying to manipulate someone, which is not something I do all the time or for any nefarious means. I'm talking about social manipulation in terms of making someone feel better about a situation I may feel completely different about.
Otherwise, I prefer coming off as boring rather than to pretend I want to talk solely for the sake of the person across from me. That's usually my default position, but is highly dependent on my mood at the time.
I think this has a tendency to make me come off as either socially inept or an ass hole in some cases, although I'm speculating on that point, which is irrelevant to how other people actually feel, so that is neither here nor there.
But I do know that alcohol makes that go away. I'll talk your ear off about whatever you want to discuss, and I'll be happy to do it.

Finally, I don't think the internet is an appropriate representation of personality AT ALL. The impressions of me I get on the internet are pretty weird. I know people say I'm intelligent and all that, but I'm of average intelligence. I may be more logically inclined and less emotionally bound, and I may utilize proper spelling and grammar, but I'm a standard, every-day guy. I speak FAR less fluently than I write. I'm horrible at math. Never did well in school. Etc... I think impressions on the internet are more in line with an individual expectation rather than the reality of the matter.
I do pride myself a bit on being able to analyze and put concepts together and use them in a coherent way to a logical end, but I think that is (or should be) the norm.
And I guess that's where your perception of that comes in.

I did above average at school but excelled at University. It doesn't mean you're more intelligent than anybody else but it certainly doesn't make you average. I am very inspired by your contributions to the computer issues thread. You know what I mean. I think you're incredibly intelligent but just don't accept that it is possibly you. I'm not necessarily likeable to everyone because I have a loud, excessive laugh and can be too much of a personality for people. I can't stand following trends and tend to believe in whatever I feel to be true, not what my family or friends believe. I just had an arguement with my mom about gay people. She is completely against it and thinks it's unnatural but it has been proved through research that people are naturally born that way. Sorry I'm rambling!

Lisnaholic · 02-24-2013, 02:50 PM

I`ve been enjoying this thread since its stormy opening; like a lot of the best discussion threads, the idea of this one is quite simple.
What I particularly like is that not only are people describing themselves, they are also choosing the way that they describe themselves. This gives me a great excuse to ramble on about types of description :-

Spoiler for a literary digression:

Marshall McLuhan enjoyed considerable fame when he reduced one of his more graspable ideas to the succinct but slightly baffling mantra, "The medium is the message." Does anyone remember that ? The essence of this idea was that when you sit and read a book, the process of sitting alone and absorbing a lot of written words affects your behaviour more than the content of the book itself. Have you ever woken up after a night slumped in front of the tv, unable to recall what you watched the previous evening ? Then you are living proof of McLuhan`s idea.

Armed with this little intellectual snippet, that the method is as significant as the content, I started thinking about descriptions in fiction:

Jane Austin probably revealed more than she intended about women`s attitudes to men . She frequently introduces her male characters by explaining their financial circumstances; how much land they have, what they might inherit, baldly stating how much they earn a year. To me it shows with unpleasant clarity how, at one level, women of the time viewed men in very materialistic terms.

Kurt Vonnegut Jr had a lot of fun with descriptions in one of his books. He started out by using conventional physical descriptions, "Mr. X, a tall red-headed man..." , by the middle of the book he was focusing on small bizarre details, "Mr.Y, a American with a bad back and unusually smelly feet ...". By the end of the book, he`s really enjoying selecting information at random; " Mr. Z, a 21-stone man with yellow skin and a six-and-a-half inch penis ..."

Vladimir Nabakov wrote one of my favourite descriptions; "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta." Of course this dazzling display doesn`t really describe much, but it does tell us straight away, "In this book, me and my style are more important than the characters themselves."

So, we have a big range of things to choose between when we describe ourselves, and what we select is probably quite revealing too ...

Several people felt comfortable enough to explain a lot about their situations or their psyche; I think it`s great that they trust the MB audience enough to do that.

Rjinn is the only person who used colour to describe herself, which I think indicates a rather off-beat way of looking at things.

I liked Vanilla`s approach, mentioning her room and some of her possessions. For me she really came to life when she said that her favourite magazine was Marie Claire because a friend I respect a lot reads that too.

Freebase also made an excellent observation :-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

I don't totally believe my own fabricated self-image. I think self-images on their own are probably inherently flawed, because they're based on the assumption that other people think the same way you do and have the same information and emotions about yourself that you have, which is never.

So, baring in mind some of the above, this is how I would describe myself:-

I grew up in a kind of stiff-upper-lip culture and have inherited an aversion to self-analysis; fine for others but I don`t want to do that to myself. So I`m going for a mixture of colours and possessions instead.
I think irl I`m best described as non-descript. I always try not to draw attention to myself. If I were a colour, I`d be grey, although the people who know me best might say, "Wow, his greyness is actually shot through with splashes of beige." I`d rather be in the hills than at the beach, and the possessions I`d like to mention are second-hand books, which I`ve been accumulating, and sometimes discarding, since the age of about 12. Since that age I`ve been a chain-reader; finish one book, start the next. So from that, feel free to infer:-
- I like reading
- I`m not particularly affluent
- something obscure from the past appeals to me more than today`s mainstream.

DoctorSoft · 02-24-2013, 04:47 PM

I think we're all just ****in beauties

Paedantic Basterd · 02-24-2013, 05:01 PM

I engage in impression management--HARD. Thus, if I were to describe myself, it would be incongruent with what any of you know of me.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 02-24-2013, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

I`ve been enjoying this thread since its stormy opening; like a lot of the best discussion threads, the idea of this one is quite simple.
What I particularly like is that not only are people describing themselves, they are also choosing the way that they describe themselves. This gives me a great excuse to ramble on about types of description :-

I liked Vanilla`s approach, mentioning her room and some of her possessions. For me she really came to life when she said that her favourite magazine was Marie Claire because a friend I respect a lot reads that too.

Wow thanks hun, I'm glad somebody actually doesn't see it as a negative thing to mention some of your possessions to describe your interests as a person. I find Marie Claire has excellent articles that are targeted at women becoming empowered but also how we are discriminated against as a gender in the 21st century. Do you know that a woman is raped every 20 minutes in India? It's abhorrent.

Freebase Dali · 02-24-2013, 09:11 PM

People think I'm a dick on the internet.

They are 100 percent right. I can just close my browser and their annoying asses are gone immediately. Can't really do that AFK.

Lisnaholic · 02-25-2013, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I engage in impression management--HARD. Thus, if I were to describe myself, it would be incongruent with what any of you know of me.

Wow ! This one made me stop and think, Pedestrian ! I`ve always thought that you were a gifted, complex person who is outwardly friendly but who preserves a very private inner core. I wonder how wrong I am .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla

Wow thanks hun, I'm glad somebody actually doesn't see it as a negative thing to mention some of your possessions to describe your interests as a person. I find Marie Claire has excellent articles that are targeted at women becoming empowered but also how we are discriminated against as a gender in the 21st century. Do you know that a woman is raped every 20 minutes in India? It's abhorrent.

You`re welcome, Vanilla !

Talking about possessions is a great way to indicate your interests and the things you like to do in your own time. That`s so much more interesting than people who define themselves by how they make money. If I meet someone at a party and they volunteer their profession straight off, I usually think, "It`s a bit sad that the way you earn money is so significant to you. I`d rather hear about what you like to do, not what you`re paid to do."

That statistic about India is really shocking, btw.

FETCHER. · 02-25-2013, 11:24 AM

Some people are lucky enough to work within what they are passionate about, for instance I am a swimming teacher and I'm extremely passionate about swimming (I'm the ultimate water baby) and I love Michael Phelps, the most decorated Olympian of all time. The guy is just unbelievable.

I just find it extremely rewarding to have a kid who won't even put their face in the water progress to club level. Makes me warm inside, plus it is a skill that stays with you for life.

Lisnaholic · 02-25-2013, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FETCHER.

Some people are lucky enough to work within what they are passionate about, for instance I am a swimming teacher and I'm extremely passionate about swimming (I'm the ultimate water baby) and I love Michael Phelps, the most decorated Olympian of all time. The guy is just unbelievable.

I just find it extremely rewarding to have a kid who won't even put their face in the water progress to club level. Makes me warm inside, plus it is a skill that stays with you for life.

^ Good point, FETCHER - I should`ve thought of people like that before I made my comment.

I still remember my son`s swimming teacher, who patiently got him past the stage of crying in the water and taught him something which, as you say, is of lasting value. That`s a nice thing to do for children.

As you are from Scotland, though, I have to ask; heated pools or what ?

02-24-2013, 02:24 AM	#41 (permalink)
Freebase Dali Partying on the inside Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,584	I don't totally believe my own fabricated self-image. I think self-images on their own are probably inherently flawed, because they're based on the assumption that other people think the same way you do and have the same information and emotions about yourself that you have, which is never. I can only judge how I come off to others by their reactions to me, and since we're dealing with how other people may see you, I think that's relevant. So, using that as a basis, I can say that I'm easy to like and get along with. I've never had an enemy (that I know about) in my life. People enjoy my sense of humor when it happens to come through, but I'm not a comedian, otherwise I would get that sort of reaction often. I'm outgoing when I'm interested in a topic. Reticent when I'm not. That goes to say that I'm pretty selective about what I'm interested in, and my level of social engagement is highly dependent on the subject being discussed. While this is more of an introspective analysis, I can verify it by judging the reaction people have when communicating with them during these moments. I'd say people see me as highly interested in particular things, and only really engaging and dynamic when I'm discussing those interests. Other times, I may seem reticent or even withdrawn, but personally, it's just because I can't feign excitement if I'm not excited. I mean, I can, but I just don't find it very productive unless I'm trying to manipulate someone, which is not something I do all the time or for any nefarious means. I'm talking about social manipulation in terms of making someone feel better about a situation I may feel completely different about. Otherwise, I prefer coming off as boring rather than to pretend I want to talk solely for the sake of the person across from me. That's usually my default position, but is highly dependent on my mood at the time. I think this has a tendency to make me come off as either socially inept or an ass hole in some cases, although I'm speculating on that point, which is irrelevant to how other people actually feel, so that is neither here nor there. But I do know that alcohol makes that go away. I'll talk your ear off about whatever you want to discuss, and I'll be happy to do it. Finally, I don't think the internet is an appropriate representation of personality AT ALL. The impressions of me I get on the internet are pretty weird. I know people say I'm intelligent and all that, but I'm of average intelligence. I may be more logically inclined and less emotionally bound, and I may utilize proper spelling and grammar, but I'm a standard, every-day guy. I speak FAR less fluently than I write. I'm horrible at math. Never did well in school. Etc... I think impressions on the internet are more in line with an individual expectation rather than the reality of the matter. I do pride myself a bit on being able to analyze and put concepts together and use them in a coherent way to a logical end, but I think that is (or should be) the norm. And I guess that's where your perception of that comes in. __________________

02-24-2013, 09:11 PM	#47 (permalink)
Freebase Dali Partying on the inside Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,584	People think I'm a dick on the internet. They are 100 percent right. I can just close my browser and their annoying asses are gone immediately. Can't really do that AFK. __________________

02-24-2013, 04:47 PM	#44 (permalink)
DoctorSoft Rocket Appliances Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 1,335	I think we're all just ****in beauties

02-24-2013, 05:01 PM	#45 (permalink)
Paedantic Basterd Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,184	I engage in impression management--HARD. Thus, if I were to describe myself, it would be incongruent with what any of you know of me.