Lewis & Clark Moodle

For this blog, I will primarily discussing the beginning portions of memorizing and attempting to properly act out our scene from The Motherfucker With the Hat.  For some reason, the beginning stages of this process strangely resembles an old family vacation I took with my family where we walked single file in a pitch black cave and had to trust each other for the next proper step; acting this performance properly kind of feels like walking straight ahead into pitch-black-unkown-nothingness.  We are still feeling out what feels appropriate, what needs to be exaggerated, and how everything gets pieced together.  For myself, I have found out that I hate monologues, especially the ones that I open the scene with.  Damian's character is putting off what I am saying, so it feels like that I am acting towards a wall, for awhile...This has made it difficult for me to have an interesting give and take effect from this portion of the performance, making it difficult for the audience to connect with the scene and have the scene be believable...It is something we are working on, and hopefully with some new blocking ideas (Damian will now be facing me while I am sitting), it might seem more like a believable scene.  With my huge monologues in the beginning, we have not had too much chance to practice the rest of the performance, so that is what is going to happen next, and hopefully as we progress through the rest of the scene, comfort levels will progress, and then the possibility to work backwards from the end of the scene might be a smart and useful strategy to take.

Here is an astonishingly apt summary of Heidegger's thesis in Being and Time put in joke terms:

Philosophy lost its way a long fucking time ago. They treat 'being' like some trivial thing, instead of the most important fucking question of our time, the one that matters most of all. What does it mean tobe? Plato ignored it and went about his merry fucking way, and now philosophy is useless.  We don't even know what it takes for something to exist. What makes a thing a thing? What are the criteria for being? Of course, the only way to get to Being itself is through beings, things that are, which is inconvenient as shit but just the way it is. Fortunately, we are beings who can understand Being, the Dasein.


At this point, you're either a bit confused or you've begun diagramming the uses of the word 'Being'. Good call, but I hope you brought tons of colored pencils and a good sharpener, or you're fucked. The truth is, the single word 'being' just wasn't meant to bear as heavy a load as this project puts on it. So think of 'Being', the essential thing we're trying to get at, like a Party, and think of 'to be', the verb, as 'to rage'. Now, there are lots of people at this party - chairs, trees, pretty much everything that is. Where is this Party? In the world, which we'll call the 'house'. And who do we know who rages the hardest? That's right,fucking Bros, that's who. They're the Dasein at this party, the partiers who rage with awareness and understanding. Turns out, Dasein being is a lot like a Bro raging, and Dasein understanding Being is a lot like Bros understanding the Party. There, isn't that better?




When a Bro rages, he rages in a way that sets him apart form everyone else at the party - he rages with an immediacy such that he knows not only what is going on but also what could be going on. He must always plan one step ahead of himself so as to rage in the best possible way, to make the most of the Party. Sometimes that worries a Bro - even Bros get anxiety from time to time, though we don't like to admit it - and that angst might cause the Bro to slow down. "Woah," he might think, "this Party could end. I see the potential, and that worries me a little - can I truly execute?" When a Bro slows down like that,  he hides his Broness, and slows down the party - when the Dasein lets his anxiety take over, he hides his Being. Eventually, the Bro must overcome his anxiety and rage in a truly authentic way that embraces the possibilities inherent to the Party - this shows the fullness of the Party. When a Bro realizes that the Party demands something, he must step up and do the fucking keg stand that no one else can do, because they're not Bros and they don't know what raging truly takes. A Bro who steps up his game, pours the shots and takes control of the music in an authentically Bro way fucking makes the Party. We've all been places where there are drinks and snacks but everyone is standing around doing nothing - that's not a fucking party. That's a potential party being wasted by all who are there; in the same way, if the Dasein is not authentic, he is wasting his Being.


Understanding the Party requires the Bro to interpret the signs of raging that he sees around him; raging isn't as simple as being in the house standing around; if only. The Bro's immediacy and awareness demand of him attention and interpretation - therefore how the Bro thinks and responds to events in the course of raging is actually an essential element of the Party - the Dasein's mind is an essential part of Being. The Bro finds himself at the Party, thrown into it - no one asked him if he wanted to rage (though he obviously would have said "Fuck yeah, bitches" had they asked him). Still, here he is, so fucking buckle up. 


This is the relationship of the Party to time - the Bro rages at a particular point in time. Again, he must think one step ahead of himself, and he must know what has already happened at the Party to know what he must do to maintain the Party; a Bro, then, to truly Party, must be aware of time - the past, present, and future are all essential elements of raging properly and authentically. That awareness goes so far even into the awareness that eventually the Party will end for the Bro - when he sees another Bro passed out on the couch all Sharpie'd up, or leaving the party sick, he becomes aware of an inevitable end. That's fucking shocking to the Bro, because he wants to rage non-stop. He has, until now, believed the Party never ends, and this awareness is a new source of anxiety for him. He must embrace this, too - eventually, the awareness that the Party ends no matter what he does will drive him to rage all the more authentically, to bring out the Party as best as he possibly fucking can. Time, then, enables the Bro to rage as well as possible, and gives meaning and sense to the Party.

http://www.philosophybro.com/2011/02/martin-heideggers-being-and-time.html

Strangely enough, the Language Arts teacher in my building has been working with all of her students on some self-knowledge activities, including the Gregorc Style Delineator. Since she always likes to include staff in her activities, I’ve recently taken a whole battery of personality tests and assessments, many of which I haven’t taken since I was in high school myself. It’s been fun to talk with students about who they are and where they are coming from, and it’s also been interesting to see how few of the students share similar profiles with me. I’m not sure if this phenomenon is a function of being an adult vs. being an adolescent or if it’s something about working in an alternative school, but it seems like I’m a lone Beaver surrounded by a sea of Otters and Lions and Abstract Randoms. Weird visual.

As in most personality tests, I found that my results were not all that surprising. Throughout most of my life, any personality test that I have taken has pointed me toward the linear, logic-oriented, consistent and detail-oriented personality categories. I’ve always joked that I’ve been 45 since I’ve been 16 years old. That being said, it was good with all of these tests to delve past the surface impression and to reflect on what these results mean to me as a person, but more importantly, as a leader.

In the Gregorc Style Delineator, I rang in loud and clear as a Concrete Sequential, which highlights my patience, my planning abilities, my literalist approach, my self-discipline, and my action-oriented approach to work and life. I’ve always been aware of these personality traits, but it was helpful to see them interpreted in the role of leadership. I could recognize myself in the ability to manage the organizational structures and functions of my institution as well as my own propensity to become too autocratic and resistant to change. When comparing my own personality type with that of the Abstract Random, which is the personality type of my co-leader at the school, it became clear to me that our polarized individual strengths work together to support both the growth of our school and our own leadership abilities. It also explained why so frequently drives me crazy.

My results from the Smalley Center Free Personality Test were slightly more ambiguous. Predictably, my dominant personality type was The Beaver—a focused, action-oriented problem-solver that can sometimes lose the ability to see the forest for the trees. However, in this test, I had a second personality type that came in with an almost equally strong score—The Golden Retriever. It was interesting to see these the interplay between these two very different personality types, and to recognize where my own traits could negatively impact the school. A routine-oriented perfectionist that is oriented toward nurturing others over promoting new ideas? That’s good to watch out for. At the same time, a thoughtful and relationship-oriented leader who promotes a positive environment and high expectations? That could be truly great.

As an instructional leader, it became clear to me that my approach to working with my staff is guided by a philosophy of non-directive leadership. My score was 46.9% non-directive and 40.2% collaborative. This makes sense to me in terms of my own partially Golden Retriever personality, which emphasizes harmony and sensitivity to others. However, I was struck most by these results because I found that though I may philosophically approach staff in a non-directive way, I believe that my own lack of experience as a leader and as a teacher prevents me from being truly effective in this non-directive style. I may truly believe that teacher empowerment and collaborative decision making can result in the most effective teacher/leader relationships, but if I don’t have the ability to successfully execute this type of approach, I’ll naturally default to a more directive style that is in line with my own personality comfort zones of detail, focus and control. I think this a truly helpful insight that I will bring into my work in the future.

Over the next 5 weeks, each group will submit a rehearsal blog to this page. These have a similar format to the reflection essays you have been writing, and are an opportunity for you to document and reflect on your process - hopefully deepening your relationship to the work. 

You only have to submit ONE blog entry per group. So, you can either split up the task week to week, or do it together. 

I am formatting this reflection as a blog, so that we will all be able to track the collective process. You will be expected to respond to another groups blog each week. 

Each blog is DUE TUESDAY at 12AM. 

I am an abstract random dominant personality according the toe GSD. I think that there is some nice language I may be able to use in communicating expectations to my team, administratio & colleagues at large.

I like that positive AR leadership results in a shared vision within a caring, cooperative and dynmaic community. I agree that I can be most effective by commiting to help the vision manifest, by discerning the unique purposes, natures, functions and limitatins of my p.o.v., and of my extraordinary sensitivity toward abstract vibrations, by understanding and honoring the non-linear logic system I use to contact, relate to and deal with individual and group spirit, by trusting my "gut feelings" of right and wrong to guard against inappropriate and harmful forces, and when I cooperate as an equal partner with other leaders.

I appreciate the list of warnings, or things to watch out for, including becoming confused by competing ideas, cross-currents of emotions and deceptive activities in teh environment, withholding my contributions because I have been demeaned or discounted, failing to evaluate or deliberate when appropriate, or ignoring breaches in the social fabric of the school, or accomodating others for fear of social rejection.

I am afraid of the reasons dominant AR leaders are fired for. I think this means I should know them the better than the others. I could be fired if I were to accept, protect or cover up incompetence, to disregard or overlook dangerous or undeserving forces. I could be reassigned if I were to indulge in flight, unfocused or indiscriminate thinking, if I were to violate boundaries, rules & regulations, or commitments to privacy. It would be dangerous if I were to allow myself to be inattentive to group morale problems or to not accept personal responsibility for problems that occur in my classroom, on the playground or with substitutes.

From the Instructional Leadership Beliefs Inventory, I find that I take a nondirective approach 46.0% of the time, a collaborative approach 33.5% of the time and a directive approach 20.1% of the time. I think this means that I prefer to work with teahers who are highly committed and highly abstract, which describes hte sort of teachers who tend to remain at my school, on our staff. (Teacher dropouts tend to leave or be reassigned.)

As for the animals, I came out as a beaver, hard working, over-explanatory. I found this a bit disappointing, but helpful. Last time I took an animal test, I was a bat, and my husband a groundhog. This other test I took was inspired by a friend who came out as a red tailed hawk. As an AR, of course I know about how there has been a recent trend in homoeopathy that encourages people to take tests like this where hundreds of animals can be involved. I had trouble using just four, knowing that, but it was still a simple and thought provoking exercise. Here is a test with more animals (but less directly geared toward leadership!) http://www.animalinyou.com/test.php

When I first moved to Oregon I remember my confusion when my middle school students asked me if I was a Beaver or Duck.  Now, I know why!  I'm really a Lion.

It seems I've taken a lot of personality tests lately--we've done a lot of work on communication styles in my district lately and my girlfriends did the Myers-Briggs last weekend just for fun.  We party hard, my friends and I.  A consistency across all of these personality profiles is that I am not a feeler or an intuitive type.  I am a thinker and a do-er.

On the Free Personality Test my top score is in the Lion category and my close second score is in the Beaver category.  As a Lion I like to take charge and solve problems.  I tend to be too impatient, too busy, too blunt.  I am conscious of my need to be a good listener, and I consciously worked on that skill over the last few years.  I still catch myself wanting to bulldoze on through a conversation, so becoming a good listener is still a personal goal.

In the Gregoric Style Delineator my strongest category was Concrete-Sequential although the score was nearly tied with Abstract-Sequential.  The logical, sequential piece is very important to me and I believe I switch back and forth between concrete and abstract thinking pretty fluidly so I am going to declare myself to be Concrete/Abstract-Sequential.  This school year my team had to dive head first into a whole lot of concrete problems very quickly.  I am quite happy to stay in concrete land for weeks on end, but just recently we have been talking about the need to get back up to the abstract---big picture, philosophical level.  There are so many competing concrete needs that we need a strong abstract, philosophical framework for our department to figure out how to prioritize the concrete work that needs to be done.

I realize as a very sequential person that I need "random" people on my team.  I need people who are intuitive, creative,  and "think outside the box" to balance my tendencies towards cold logic and conservative choices.  I need charismatic, visionary co-leaders to help me dream the vision.  Which I will then happily go execute.  And then I need these charismatic, feel-focused people to help sell the vision to others.  Because I'm a lion, and sometimes people really want a Golden Retriever to talk to.  Or a Beaver or a Duck.

I did my personality test and the Gregoric Style and was somewhat confused on the results. For the Gregoric Style I got a 26-CS, 25-AS, 24-AR, and 25-CR. I was so close on all of them I didn't know which style I was. I read through all the descriptions and pieces of each describe what I would say my style is. I did identify with most of the fears and likes and dislikes in the CS category which was my highest so I thought that was correct. It made me feel as though I am adaptable and can change my style with the situation I am put in.

    On the Instructional Leadership Beliefs Inventory I had to put myself in a hypothetical role as an Instructional Leader as I am not currently in that role. I also looked at how I would want my administrator to act towards me. With having taught at three different high schools in 3 different states and worked with 6 different administrators in that time I have also analyzed aspects of their leadership style. These experiences have helped to shape my thoughts about how I would act in that role. On this test I scored a 40.2% on Directive, a 20.1% on Collaborative, and a 40.2% on Non-Directive. Again I had a tie for two traits that are sort of contradictory of each other. After reading through the descriptions I decided that both those percentages worked well with high motivation teachers from the chart. The non-directive approach worked well with highly abstract teachers that are probably very capable of making decisions to better the school and know where they need to go. The directive approach worked well with teachers that were not as highly abstract thinkers and needed more guidance and help with what to do to help the school. I thought this meant I also change my style depending on what type of teacher I am dealing with and how much direction they need from me. I did notice Collaborative was definitely my lowest scoring area so that could be an area I am not as comfortable dealing with and need to work on improving.

      The last test I did was the personality test just to see how I scored. I ended up being a Beaver-Lion with only a one point difference between those two. Again they are somewhat contradictory in nature, but thought I was a balanced version of the two areas.  My lowest scoring category was the otter which I definitely agreed with. It taught me to be careful in being too demanding of my teachers and holding them to too high of standards. I felt that is a very important attribute for me to control in the future so I don't alienate teachers.

According to the Free Personality Test I am a Golden Retriever (49), with Beaver coming in second (44), Lion third(43), and last is the Otter (41). Although I tend to fall into the Golden Retriever personality of one with steadiness, calm, dependable, and diplomatic, I feel myself having traits from the other profiles as well, making me a little bit of each depending on the situation, and I have found this true in other profile tests.

On the Gregoric Style Delineator test I resulted as a Concrete Sequential first with 36 points, second in Abstract Random 32, and tied with Abstract Sequential and Concrete Random.  I found myself smiling and nodding to most of the characteristics that fall into CS and in turn hope it will help me in communicating to other people in the other categories.

My approach is of non-directive approach where I listen, encourage, clarify, and let teacher decide on action. 

Reflection: How can we effectively communicate with others, whether in our profession or with family and friends, that fall in the other categories to maximize our leadership results? 

I don’t like personality test.  I took a personality test as a finalist for the Ronald Reagan Scholarship to attend Eureka College in Eureka, Illinois.  The scholarship was a full ride with business internships included.   I met with a representative for an interview and a personality test. The  test proctor directed not to lie.  What does that mean?  Well, I lied on the test.  It asked questions like:  have you ever stolen anything?  What kind of question is that?  I couldn’t be labeled as a thief so I lied. I did not get the scholarship and have always thought I was noted as a sociopath.  Fast forward to today, when my Instructional Leadership teacher asks me to take a personality test.  I took the personality test and was not interested in analyzing the result.

I scored highest in The Otter category on the Smalley Center Personality Interpretation.  The Otter Personality is an optimistic, energetic motivator that is focused on the future.   This positive description rings true to me. Who would not want to be known as optimistic? The personality description continued to list the shortcomings of Otter people:  unrealistic, impatient, pushy and avoids details.  These out of balance descriptions seem a bit harsh and over simplified.  I would not describe myself as unrealistic and I know a fraction of the out of balance descriptions is true. The personality document went on to describe Otter weaknesses as: undisciplined, unproductive, exaggerating, egotentric and unstable.  I do not agree.  When I doubt myself I bring other people into my self-assessments.

 In the Fall, I was talking to a school provider in what was projected as a harsh tone.  I asked my coworker about my tone.  She said she did not find it harsh but she could tell the other person in the meeting was reacting to my tone.  This is an example of  a personality blind spot.   I am willing to look at self-assessments because I do not want to not collide with the world and I want to work well with people.  This personality test provided me another lens for self-reflection.