GRE prep, two months in & three months away

Back in January, I bought some books so that I could start studying for the GRE. I wanted to take it mid-June; that gives me as much time as possible to prepare while still allowing a month in which I could retake the test (the current version) if I don’t like my first scores. I’m thinking June 13.

I’ve worked through the 80 sets of words (10 per set) in Barron’s Essential Words for the GRE. I knew some, vaguely recognized others, and had never even seen a few of them (like “contumacious”–rebellious or disobedient). Now I’ve begun the section on word roots. I feel more confident about those, but there are still some that I never quite knew (which now make embarrassingly perfect sense, like “ev,” as in “medieval”–”medi” = middle, “ev” = age/era, “al” = a suffix meaning “of,” “pertaining to,” etc.). Medieval. Belonging to, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Middle Ages. What a duh.

I recently noticed the word “vicious” as well. (Think “vice.”) Of course, now the phrase “vicious circle” sounds pretty strange. Somebody anthropomorphized the abstract concept of circularity?

On a diagnostic test in the Barron’s general GRE prep book, I scored 760 on the Verbal section, which is hopeful. (Should I have shown off there by saying “sanguine” instead? …Nah, would’ve just put my mind on Firefly.) I didn’t do so well at the Quantitative portion, but that was before working on any math. I haven’t done the stuff they’re testing in the math section for about ten years; instead I’ve finally begun to get a grasp on sines, cosines, and tangents (thank you, physics), found the tangents of some curves ( ), and briefly surveyed the terrain of discrete maths (sets, graphs, combinations and permutations, etc.). Those, and puzzles. I like puzzles. Give me a problem with a checkerboard and I’ll be worse than a dog worrying its favorite bone.

I’ve now worked through 200 pages of the Nova GRE Math Prep book. So far, so good. I’ve really got to stop making stupid mistakes, though–I made 2 or 3 in the set of 100 geometry problems–and I should probably start plowing through a couple dozen pages a day just for the practice. That’s the most important thing for me in math; I just have to use it so much that I can’t get it out of my head if I want to, so that it doesn’t take me so long to get to the answers. I can’t try to memorize math (it doesn’t work that way for me), but if I use it, I’ll remember it like remembering how to swim. It takes a little bit to readjust after a long break, but the memory’s there, in the muscle. And if I use math enough, I can begin to see how it works, how the numbers and shapes and equations relate to one another. I love that, and that’s what I need to do. Unfortunately, I’ve only worked on the math in fits now and then, so far.

So, I should go work on some of those roots and maths instead of rambling on about them. Cheers.

Lumosity: Fun games to stretch your brain

If you don’t know about the “brain games” website Lumosity, you should go have a look. It’s kind of like yoga for your mind. Well, maybe you wouldn’t like it if you hate puzzles and sudoku and lateral thinking games, but even if you do you might find it useful.

Lumosity isn’t a website of puzzles like sudoku, and it isn’t a brain teaser site, either, but it is designed to offer fun games that challenge your brain. Some of them are so straightforward that they could have been made for a personal computer circa 1984 – oh, wait. Raindrops is a prettified update to the old falling equations math game Funnels & Buckets; in some ways it’s harder (3 misses and you’re done, whereas in F&B the buckets had to fill up, so you could miss up to 10 times or so), but in others it’s easier (the screen clears for a fresh start when you miss in Raindrops, while in F&B the numbers keep on falling). Either way, though, it will challenge your speed if nothing else: the game speeds up until 3 equations have fallen to the bottom before you could answer, and it throws more equations out simultaneously as they begin to fall faster. You can’t ‘win’ this game.

Actually, a lot of the games at Lumosity are this way, and I think it’s one of the site’s strengths. However well you do initially, the games will speed up and add more variables until you struggle with them; they’re well-designed to offer a challenge at almost any level. And they are simple in concept – Raindrops uses basic arithmetic; a maze race game spins, challenging your ability to stay oriented while navigating as fast as possible; a pattern matching game tests your working memory by asking whether the current card matches the pattern shown one or two cards earlier, with a collection limited to 3 or 4 cards (surprisingly tough!); a word game asks you to come up with as many words as you can that start with the same few letters.

Unfortunately, the research on any benefits in the real world of working on your speed, memory, or mental calculation skill with these games seems to be sparse even now. Lumosity has some study reports listed on the website, but the number of study participants is so small that it seems unreliable; one lists 23 participants split into a control and an experimental group – far too few people to make for a representative sample. Other than that, the site notes frequently what people say about Lumosity, that is, it notes anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes prove psychologically persuasive for many or most people, but even when they report actual results (Lumosity only reports perceived results), they are too dependent on the individuals telling them to be reliable indicators of general results.

But there are some high-profile schools doing studies on Lumosity, they say (Harvard, Columbia, Stanford), so maybe they’re working on something more comprehensive.

Well, if I haven’t badmouthed their small-sample study too much, I’ll add that I signed up for the free trial a couple of weeks ago, and the games are quite fun. I’m playing them to get a little more comfortable trying to solve problems under an intense time constraint that gets more difficult as I do better. Sounds a little like a CAT, and I figure it won’t hurt. I tend to freak out a little bit when I feel rushed … never much liked the linear Mario games, where the screen will push you forward if you don’t keep moving constantly. So, I’ll try to get used to it so I can keep my head a bit clearer.

Give it a try. If you’re going to play flash games online, you might as well pick ones that are a little more edifying than, say, Gemcraft. Right?

Long day

I just had a really long day sitting in on a seminar for work. It was the workshop that our associates do to present, explain, & demonstrate the profile that is our main product. It was good, tiring (it’s supposed to be that), and then I got a glass of wine (which I guess they’re paying me to have stayed to drink), so I guess it evened out a bit. Seems like a cool crowd who were there today – and will be at our office this week to get certified as associates themselves – but then what do I know, social idiot that I am?

At any rate, I’m tired and can’t really even give a summary or thoughts on the day right now. That’s to be expected, of course. I’m tri-modal (I have a committee in my head, or so I’m told), and I’m on the quiet end of expressiveness (so I want what I’m going to say to be pretty well articulated before I say it).

So, good night.

The ambiguity of my Myers-Briggs

Have you taken the Myers Briggs type indicator? I have, more than once. And I got more than one result…each time. And they were different. With the profile we do at my (new) office, though, I can tell you why. That seems pretty cool.

According to Myers Briggs, ca. 2002-03, I am (was) an INFP. We took the test for a class my senior year of high school; my teacher looked over my shoulder at my result and exclaimed, “You are NOT a ‘P’!” I replied that I was, noting that I was a pretty good procrastinator (which we had been told was an indicator of a ‘P’). We were both right.

According to Wikipedia, Js like to “have matters settled” while Ps like to keep their options open; also, J vs. P determines which of the other characteristics is most apparent to others (N/S for a P, or F/T for a J). So if I’m T and J, I’ll seem more logical than anything else (T is thinking); if I’m F (feeling) and J, I’ll seem empathetic. An N (intuition) and P seems abstract, while an S (sensing) and P is more concrete. The problem for Myers-Briggs is that I am three of these four. I can be excruciatingly logical, but I am also extremely attentive to minute detail (concrete). And at the same time, what person could thrive as a philosophy major if she’s not quite an abstract thinker? I do MATH in an intuitive way, for goodness’ sake! The only thing I probably don’t exhibit clearly is empathy. Maybe I don’t know how — I am the uber introvert, you see.

I am consistently Introverted. The other three variables…well, vary. At various points, twice for classes and other times in online versions, I have come up as anything from INFP to ISTJ. Generally, I would call myself an I – N/S – T – P/J. The F and T have on occasion been pretty close, but I’m more consistently a T. So…why all this variance?

Consider 4 modes of thinking: Analytical, Structural, Conceptual, and Social. Analytical wants evidence, arguments, logic and explanation. Structural wants details, precedent, order and punctuality. Conceptual likes originality, intuition, and the big picture. Social wants to know how ideas and actions impact people.

We all put some amount of energy into each mode of thinking, and how much of each is something that is partly natural to each of us and partly developed through the environment in which we grow up. I am mostly analytical, with significant and nearly equal portions of structural and conceptual thought, … and almost nothing of social. I am a social idiot.

Now consider three spectrums of behavior: expressiveness, assertiveness, and flexibility. The questions here are approximately these: How loudly do you make your thoughts known? How aggressively do you impose your opinions on others? and How likely are you to be persuaded to change your mind once it’s made up? (Generally — anyone can be pushed outside of their norms now and then.)

My answers are: as quietly as a mouse, no more aggressively than grass, and I’ll be damned if you ever change my mind with anything less than solid proof and impeccable reason.

So, why can’t the Myers-Briggs indicator figure me out?

I am most emphatically ‘I.’ You can see that in my expressiveness and assertiveness percentiles (5%ile). But I am both Intuitive and Sensing (equal preferences for Conceptual and Structural thinking), though I may lean towards Sensing more often (an extra push from my Analytical preference), and I am both Feeling and Thinking (both Conceptual and Analytical). My thinking modes include both the abstract and the concrete, but thanks to the lack of Social thought, I am unlikely to come across as empathetic or as really “connecting” to people I interact with (I don’t really ‘get’ people – I don’t ‘feel a vibe’ from a group of people, and that phrase doesn’t really make sense to me, though I can analyse and describe what it might mean along more concrete terms).

Since I have three different thinking preferences (modes of thought into which I put at least 23% of the total energy I put into thinking), I tend to take a fair amount of time coming to a position on any given issue. I can see the issue from several different angles, all of which have some validity and must be reconciled with each other. This winds up looking like the Myers-Briggs’ type ‘P’, since I am undecided or put off action. However, once I’ve come to a decision, it is solid – it’s settled, and it’s going to stay that way. More like the ‘J’ – and it will require concrete argumentation or evidence to move me, like you’d expect of a T-J.

So in a longer-than-necessary attempt at explanation, you have the ambiguity of my MBTI (I-N/S-T-P/J), and a different way of explaining how I think that helps to show why the MBTI is ambiguous.

Brain magic

A TED Talk (performance) by Keith Barry. Entertaining, but I am disappointed that he never explained any of the tricks. It’s TED, after all. And I know what he did on the first one, but they switched camera angles at just the key second, so I can’t actually see it! TED is an accomplice.. What I want to know is what the trick was in the blindfolded car drive … I watch too much of shows like Dollhouse so I keep thinking things like “video feed behind the blindfold.”