Tuesday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion | Clarissa's Blog
Tolerance for ambiguity may be cultural. It’s not something I would need to work on, because I tend to see all situations as highly ambiguous. It means I do not suit the role of pillar of society or guardian of very young children. I’m highly adapted to making accurate analyses of very, very complex situations, though.
I don’t think tolerance for ambiguity is something you can work on. in the opposite direction, I tried, for many years, to work on seeing things more rigidly, as this seemed to be what was required of me as the fundamental female gender role as per the paragraph above. I couldn’t do this because I couldn’t train myself to see less than what I was capable of seeing, but to see it more strongly. Rather, I see a great deal more than most people, but I’m not always decided about it.
I did, for a long time, think people’s perceptions themselves had been castrated. I can see so many different dimensions of one event, which all appear at once. Thus it can be very entertaining for me to simply go from day to day experiencing reality, however it turns up. To try to narrow my focus to one experience or one project is a refined torture for me. I don’t feel more in control if I am goal-directed or acting in the role of a moral arbiter. Quite the opposite. I’m in control when I can keep track of all the different component parts of reality sufficiently to improvise something suddenly in a dire situation.
Because I’m hugely aware of my environment (not in a social sense, but more in terms of psychological dynamics) I can manage crisis situations better than most.
I really don’ t like it that people kept pressing me toward the female gender role (moral arbiter and moral guide) for so long because they thought these tendencies must necessarily be an innate part of me, or else I must be inadequate.
I tolerate complexity, but I have no tolerance for narrow simplicity.
Tolerance for ambiguity may be cultural. It’s not something I would need to work on, because I tend to see all situations as highly ambiguous. It means I do not suit the role of pillar of society or guardian of very young children. I’m highly adapted to making accurate analyses of very, very complex situations, though.
I don’t think tolerance for ambiguity is something you can work on. in the opposite direction, I tried, for many years, to work on seeing things more rigidly, as this seemed to be what was required of me as the fundamental female gender role as per the paragraph above. I couldn’t do this because I couldn’t train myself to see less than what I was capable of seeing, but to see it more strongly. Rather, I see a great deal more than most people, but I’m not always decided about it.
I did, for a long time, think people’s perceptions themselves had been castrated. I can see so many different dimensions of one event, which all appear at once. Thus it can be very entertaining for me to simply go from day to day experiencing reality, however it turns up. To try to narrow my focus to one experience or one project is a refined torture for me. I don’t feel more in control if I am goal-directed or acting in the role of a moral arbiter. Quite the opposite. I’m in control when I can keep track of all the different component parts of reality sufficiently to improvise something suddenly in a dire situation.
Because I’m hugely aware of my environment (not in a social sense, but more in terms of psychological dynamics) I can manage crisis situations better than most.
I really don’ t like it that people kept pressing me toward the female gender role (moral arbiter and moral guide) for so long because they thought these tendencies must necessarily be an innate part of me, or else I must be inadequate.
I tolerate complexity, but I have no tolerance for narrow simplicity.
No comments:
Post a Comment