I (L) Huckabees

You don't expect American directors to handle philosophical films well, and it has to be said that half way through I (L) Huckabees I was a tad worried about the direction it was heading in.

However, I should have trusted writer/director David O Russel (Three Kings) more, he pulled it all off with aplomb and produced something wonderful, funny and thoughtful.

Between that, The Incredibles and Finding Neverland it's been a great month for movies!

Rock and Roll!

Cheers to interimlover for the link to this video showing what you can do with a teeny keyboard.

More Music

A man covered with electronic devices proves that the one-man-band can move into the 21st century.
Here.

UK Phone Posting

UK people can now make Phone Posts!

Paid Users Only, of course.

Testing Testing

I just discovered that the eye-recognition test was part of a larger one, taken from the Baron-Cohen Systemising/Empathising tests.  So I did the rest.

Systemising:
Your score: 38 - which is at the high end of average, but not quite into the Asperger's area.
0 - 19 = low
20 - 39 = average (most women score about 24 and most men score about 30)
40 - 50 = above average (most people with Asperger Syndrome or high-functioning autism score in this range)
51 - 80 is very high (three times as many people with Asperger Syndrome score in this range, compared to typical men, and almost no women score in this range)
80 is maximum

Empathising
Your score: 15
0 - 32 = low (most people with Asperger Syndrome or high-functioning autism score about 20)
33 - 52 = average (most women score about 47 and most men score about 42)
53 - 63 is above average
64 - 80 is very high
80 is maximum

Autism Quotient
Your score: 29 - again, almost into Aspergers, but not quite.
0 - 10 = low
11 - 22 = average (most women score about 15 and most men score about 17)
23 - 31 = above average
32 - 50 is very high (most people with Asperger Syndrome or high-functioning autism score about 35)
50 is maximum

Now, obviously, this a self-assessed test, and I'm sure that a fair few of the answers could be quibbled over, and are situational.  But the overall results don't surprise me at all.
It looks like I lack the empathising skills necessary for general social life, but don't quite have the systemising ones for just avoiding people and focussing on the interesting stuff.

Addendum: It's here - warning, sometimes overloaded - keep trying and you'll get there...

Being myself

Occasionally I post the results of tests on my LJ.  Barring the recent one for Disney Princesses (which just amused me far too much _not_ to post), I tend not to answer most of the quizzes that make the rounds.

The one's I'm most fascinated with are the ones for the Myers-Briggs Typology (on which I am an INTP) and ones to do with Aspergers/Systemising.  The reason for this is that I feel these express something I feel strongly about myself.  I'm not 'normal', I don't fit in, I never have, and I don't feel any particular need to.  Cataloguing the ways in which I feel different and displaying them acts as both a warning to others ("This is what you can expect of Andrew") and as a statement of how I feel ("This is what I find important.").

Of course, interacting with the world means _compromise_.  I have to work, and I like having friends.  Many of them aren't like me - in fact there are damn few people I actually enjoy discussing things with in depth, because most people seem to be lacking an interest in discussing them, or even thinking about them.  One of the great things about LJ has been that purely by writing about what interests me I've attracted people that find the same things at least intermittently interesting.  Getting back to the point - compromise - dealing with most people means finding points in common and then ways of interacting with them that don't cause friction.

A question that I mull over from time to time is how much compromise is reasonable - how much I should 'be myself' (which is where I am, of course, most comfortable) and how much I should be entertaining, understanding and generally 'there' for other people.  If I want them to be there for me, to offer friendship and all the things that go with it, then I need to compromise somewhat, otherwise what reason could they have for wanting to hang out with me?  On the other hand, I spend enough time in this way at work that by the time I get home I don't really feel like I have the energy to spend doing so in the evening as well.

Obviously, the easiest thing to do is to surround myelf with people that feel like me, or at least as much as possible, the problem there being that this prevents any kind of growth as I wouldn't be exposed to new ideas.  Oh, and as I said above, I don't know nearly enough of those.  So compromise is the order of the day.

The question being how much?  Should I deliberately take an interest in things that don't interest me, so I can discuss them with other people (instant reaction: Hell No!  I don't have enough time to indulge my actual interests).  Should I set aside time for other people, to help them with things (instant reaction: provided this is mutual, then yes - we should help each other, so long as we're not being taken advantage of).

It's tricky.  Which, I suspect, is why the topic rises to the surface of my brain on a fairly regular basis.

Oh - and go see I Heart Huckabees at once!

Reviews

Go to this particularly amusing part of Amazon and read reviews.

Well, not actually reviews.

I hope.