Topic: Posts

Hey folks!

I’m in St. Louis for Spring Break (until the 13th), and I have a lot on my plate. Here’s an update on what I’ve been up to, and what I’m planning on doing during this week.

I have a lot to read and write. I have a paper to research/outline/write about gender in the Child Ballad #109 (that is, “The Famous Flower of Serving Men” as Martin Carthy calls it, but I’m pretty sure Child calls it “The Border Widow’s Lament”.) It originates circa 1650, and there are a couple of interesting things I can write about, mostly using Stephen Greenblat to explore both the version that Child collected, and the version that Carthy does. So that doesn’t seem too difficult, but totally out of character for me, because I’m way more interested in other aspects of gender (re)presentation. But there you have it, at this point I’m mostly hoping that what I have fits the word count, because I don’t know if I can milk more out of this idea. Shouldn’t be a big problem.

I also have a, I think the term is, metric-ass-load of reading to do. Djuana Barnes’ Nightwood, some audio books to knit too finishing listening to, podcasts to catch up on, Winterson’s Written on the Body, Kate Bornstein, psychology readings like woah, you know: catch up and getting ahead. I also want to draft up some of the (Re)presenting Identity introduction, because I’ve been playing with that for a few days in my head and it’ll be good to break the ice with that.

Also on my plate for this break is to post a slew of Academia related blog posts, because, apparently my idea of getting a backlog kitty, totally didn’t work, so I might as well clear out the cache and just post things as they come.

In terms of knitting, I just (literally, just) started the neck shaping of the sweater I’ve been working on for a while. It’s a two-color stranded fisherman’s style ganscye, using a bunch of patterns that are variants of a bunch of random things. I think taken as a whole, it has a very lattice-ish look, so I’ve been calling it “the lattice work sweater” in my head, but I haven’t really communicated that with anyone. I was listening to Brenda Dayne’s Cast On, Podcast and she described a designing process for fair isle sweaters that she likened to Jazz Riffs, and I think that’s totally apt.

In any case, assuming it fits and doesn’t look wretched, I’ll probably submit it to knitty. Starting the neck shaping means that I’m within 3 inches of the end of the body, and there’s something interesting happening on nearly every row until the end. My goal for this break is to finish the body, and the neck trim, and start on the sleeves, which are one of those parts that’s going to be a royal pain in the rear because I’m not sure quite how it’s going to work out, and I basically have to do it by the seat of my pants. The second one will go much easier I’m sure.

Also on the knitting to-do list, for this break is: start on the next sweater, (requires winding yarn, gauge swatching (gasp!) and casting on). I also have this perverse desire to knit a pair of socks (I have some pretty chunky yarn, so I don’t spend the next year and a half knitting fingering weight socks). I also have arm band thingies to put on a vest, and weave in all of four ends or something like that.

So that’s where things are going. I had actually written this post up and intended to post it earlier in the week, but clicked out of the window, and was deluded in the notion that I’d already posted it. My apologies.

Cheers, Sam

I have something for you on a lighter, less postmodern (maybe note.) After reading this, I just wanted to say:

I want to get a kilt so I can wear it over jeans.

I’m such a college student, and I think this post should be taken as evidence that it’s a very good thing that I’m going to be graduating in a year and some change.

Cheers, Sam

We were discussing the possibility of heritability and psychological traits, in a class today, and the professor made the point that “if people have an implicit theory that, for instance, height and intelligence are linked, and if this theory persists, psychologists will observe a correlation between heritability and intelligence.”

He went on to say (and I agree with this), “this linkage, though ‘real’ isn’t because there isn’t likely a gene (or genes) that controls cognitive ability and height, but rather, tall people, if assumed to be smarter, will be given opportunities that will enable them to develop into more intelligent people. As a result of this association, (since height is highly heritable), psychologists will observe a heritable intelligence link.”

Basically that correlations don’t prove causation, with the added little bonus of “teleologies will reify themselves.“That sounds great!” I say. And it does.

So I, being the uppity chap I am, offer the following in some form (again, this is all hindsight, and I’ve been trying to clarify it all day, so it’s probably more clear now than it was in the original):

“If there is a widely held belief about a construct, reified by repeated social behavior (performative acts, if you will), then our definition of that construct (and our ability to understand/measure/analyize it) is defined (at least in part) by that belief about the construct.”

The response was something to the effect of, “Thats true, but even if our measurement technique was perfect, and it isn’t, we’d still observe differences, because intelligence--or whatever trait--will actually change because of the social factors.” (Again, not doing justice here; he really is very articulate.)

And then the class was over.

This represents, I think, why I feel out of place in psychology. There is an assumption that psychometrically valid constructs and factors, exist a priori. Therefore the problems with psychological investigation, are a product of the measurement and design, when in fact there’s no there, there. That we think if we just work hard enough and are meticulous enough we’ll be able to finally understand the essence of construct x, y or z.

Here’s a food example: It’s like studying french-fryness while encountering only one variety of french fries, without realizing thateither_ other kinds of french fries or potatoes exist_ and that frenchy fry cutting factories exist; and then deciding that the only way to really learn about french-fryness is to encounter as many different iterations of that only one variety of french fries in as many ways as possible.

Because that would work so well.

Cheers, Sam

I must admit that I don’t consume knitting books in the normal manner. Patterns rarely interest me, and many of the knitting books which have been popular of late, are very interested in sharing the craft with a new generation, teaching the basic skills of knitting, purling, casting on and binding off, with a hip(ster) flare. And while I appreciate the presence of some of these books (Most notably, Sally Melville’s “The Knitting Experience,” books, The Knit Stitch, The Purl Stitch, and now Color, but most of the other dribble out there, is just that. Sorry to offend, I have minor beef with the Stitch and Bitch/Bust franchise, and many of the other books around to me seem to be repetitive, and not suited to my purposes. To each their own.)

Having said that, there are a number of knitting books that I do enjoy a lot, and I thought I’d list them out here. It’ll show you where I’m coming from, and then again it might just show you something good to look for, if you’re in need of good knitting reading.

No particular order.

Alice Starmore. Fisherman’s Sweaters.

Anne L. MacDonald. No Idle Hands: The Social History of American Knitting

Ann Feitelson. The Art of Fair Isle Knitting: History, Technique, Color, & Patterns.

Meg Swansen. Meg Swansen’s Knitting.

Elizabeth Zimmerman. Knitting Without Tears.

Alice Starmore. The Fair Isle Knitting Handbook. (also Alice Starmore’s Book of Fair Isle Knitting.)

Enjoy!

Dude. I have such a backlog of things that I struck my eye over break, that I totally haven’t gotten it together to post here. Wow. Anyway. Here’s something for you to enjoy

As an academic brat, I found this sort of interesting, and my experience these days, is that I’m really pretty comfortable in academic settings (dare I say, most comfortable?) While academia has completely colonized my brain, I’m mostly ok with this. Lets just hope I get into grad-school. Anyway, Enough angst for right now.

Read this post:

post MLA post

“I really enjoyed MLA this year -- as I usually do. I know so many people who are still wounded from the job market and who loathe MLA -- but oddly enough I always really like it. I’ve been thinking about why that is, and I think it’s something tribal. MLA is the one place where I feel like I’m part of something bigger, like I belong with a group of people. Of course, as a second-generation academic, this might make some kind of sense (supposedly I attended an MLA with my parents when I was 2 1/2 but I don’t remember it). But at a deeper level I generally have a strong distrust of groups, of seemingly artificial communities. I was raised without any kind of religious community, youth group, sports team, or other such organizations that probably promote social skills and a sense of belonging. I’m an introverted, overeducated nerd -- so mostly I don’t walk into a room of strangers and think ‘ah, I fit in here.’

But at the MLA, I know I fit. And I know that I fit somewhere in the middle of the spectrum -- I’m not the nerdiest, the smartest, the ugliest, the leftiest, the most fashionable. I’m right in the middle. And I very very rarely get to be middle-of-the-road average. It’s kind of relaxing.”

(Via In Favor of Thinking.)

A professor of mine, a social psychologist by training, and I had a little run in the other day. I think it’s interesting, so I’m sharing it with you:

I made the assertion that cognitive neuroscience, in contrast to social psychology, was probably the biggest thrust currently in the discipline of psychology.

He objected, with an unsupported statement. Something to the effect of, “I disagree, this is really important.”

To which I said. “No, I agree completely, this is really interesting, and totally worth while, but psychology as a field is moving away from social and personality fields.”

He repeated his objection.

I said, “There have to be way more new Ph.D.’s and tenure-track jobs in cognitive/neuroscience than there are in social and personality jobs.”

He conceded the factuality of that point, with the comment that “That has to do with funding and money.”

Precisely.

JT Leroy’s Blog

Wow. Some background. JT Leory’s story is very similar to another you may be familair with: that of Anthony Godby Johnson. The Wikipedia articles above should give you the background. Basically LeRoy/Johnson were/are potentially fictitious authors who ’live’ very secluded lives, and tell stories about their tortured childhoods. This is in effect the modern literary hoax, and I couldn’t be more interested.

I think JT LeRoy is much less cut and dry than AGJ, in AGJ’s case, there were certain legal and medical records which didn’t exist, which should have been part of the public record, possibly of course, and the complete dirth of cases, lead to a fairly logical situation. JT, on the other hand. shrug

I’m fascinated by this, and aperantly, my source(s) tell me there’s an upsurge in chatter about LeRoy. I think the connotations of identity here are huge. I keep saying that ‘how others see you’ is potentially as much about “who you are” as, how you see yourself; and this sure throws a wrench in it.

Thoughts? Questions? I recognize this is a pretty week post, and relies heavily on the wikipedia accounts (which are by my reading dead on; the LeRoy one, leans a bit in LeRoy’s direction, but no matter.)

I had heretofore been completely oblivious to it’s existence, and while I don’t actually want to read the blog, its existence is most interesting…

This post consists of a definition. I’d like to see what people thing the word is. Post your responses in the comments, and no fair googling.

The often internally conflicting interrelationships of groups of people in ‘society’.

Frankly, it’s my favorite definition of this word. It’s also a rather uncommon one.

An academic group, interested in memory and narrative started to write a blog in october, but hasn’t had the follow through that one might hope for. But then it’s an academic blog, and getting academics to collaborate on projects like this, is terribly difficult. Maybe we’ll see some more. I’m pulling out interesting bits from the intro post, and I’ll keep you all posted, if more interesting things start appearing.

This interesting little bit from the first post. Not so much a summary, just something that got my eye….

Introducing the Popular Memory & Narrative Study Group:

“…the starting point for sociology, almost by definition, has been ‘society’ and its ‘institutions’; whilst in versions of structuralist social theory the individual has been something of a vanishing point, disappearing without trace under a deluge of language and discourse. Instead, a reinvigorated focus on narrative begins with individual stories, memories and life-histories and traces these outwards (and upwards) to the social structures and collectivities of which individuals are a part.”

(Via Memory and Narrative blog.)

Exactly!

Freaky? Economics > “This is a book about feminism and racism written for people who feel either uncomfortable or unwelcome in the great conversation North American society has been having about feminism and racism since the 1960s. It presents an authoritative alternate language in which — not to participate in, but—to dominate that conversation. Dubner and Levitt assure their readers that ’economics’ is the value-free idiom with respect to which those other, value-laden, idioms can be shown to be misguided at best, stupid at worst, and almost always dead wrong.”

(Via Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog.)

Savage Minds is something I’ve really enjoyed a lot in the past few weeks, so you should check it out, but I really liked this analyis of the pop-social science, book “Freakenomics.”

I must admit that I haven’t really read this book, and I really have no interest, but a lot of people seem to like it which I totally find troubling. Here’s a book which takes social science in the wrong direction: reductive; objective-oriented; and quantitative superiority. Which while not without its merit, is deplorable at its best because it works to invalidate alternate methods and ways of knowing. Which in this case is not at all called for. In my humble opinion. So there.

Cheers, Sam