One of the earliest stories of my childhood that my mother likes to tell is of me, younger than 4 years old, playing a game by myself at my older sister’s soccer game. When she confronted me about what I was doing, I informed her that I was acting out a inverted scene a la Mel Brooks’s Young Frankenstein where the monster criticized an angry mob descending on him for falling victim to group think. As an epithet, it expresses some of my central traits wonderfully: critical and skeptical with frequent moments of wry contemplation.
Intellectually, I’ve always been open minded, analytical, creative, and subversive. Because of this, my thoughts and perspectives are difficult to pigeonhole. I often view things from a meta-perspective or from self-reflexive tangents. To some, these thought processes can appear scattered or idiosyncratic, though they tend to seem firmly based in logic to me. I usually exercise these tendencies through writing in a variety of styles or debate (mostly internal, sometimes loud and obnoxious). I skew too broad to appear driven by any individual question or school of thought, though I would such (wide ranging if not oblique) people among my influences as Karl Popper, Ludwig Wittgenstein, David Foster Wallace, Albert Camus, Cormac McCarthy, David Hume, Michael Gira, Jorge Luis Borges, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Hicks.