I am a perfectionist. Plain and simple. But only recently have I truly begun to realize just how imperfect practically everything is.
It all started with calculus. "What do you mean we can't find the exact answer?!" I exclaimed internally to myself. "How could we possibly get so close to an answer, and infinitely so, without ever finding it?! There's got to be an end somewhere... right?" I would think when we first began limits. While I logically knew why it's impossible, I just could not hold an intuitive belief of how this fairly advanced math could not find the answer. Though I've come to accept it. Sort of.
I mean, okay. I'm a biochemistry major. I am all too familiar with the concept of entropy. In fact, I see my world in terms of chemistry (which is a whole 'nother post to make), so quite often I use the word "entropy" to describe things. "My God, the entropy..." I might whisper to myself when I unlock my disheveled dorm room, which is a single, by the way. (Which "only" happens if I'm too focused on studying... so all the time.) It really is amazing, though, this entropy business. There's not a thing I can think of that goes against it in the grand scheme of things. Which I suppose is obvious, since it applies to the entire universe and is a solidly accepted idea in science. But still.
My organic chemistry professor was telling us, one lecture, about this academic paper he was reviewing. How it had so many mistakes in basic theory. "Sometimes it really surprises me that someone who does this for a living wouldn't remember these basic things." I suppose before hearing him talk about that, I naively perceived research scientists to be super meticulous about everything. Not making a mistake. Always finding something new. Logically, I know that's not true. I suppose it's just one of those things that I never did think too deeply about, so despite the logic of it all, I just had that kind of preconceived attitude about it all.
I find a similar paradox when it comes to adults in general. To children, adults seem to have it all figured out. Everything is going fine and well. My first impression of most adults does not involve the thought of the mistakes they make or the things they might have done when they were teenagers, but recently I have thought about it. The generation I was born into can't be that different from the adults of previous generations. The fundamentals are all the same. For example, the popularity of alcohol is nothing new. But for some reason I just can't bring myself to believe that a large majority of these older adults probably did drink in college, sometimes to the point of blacking out or doing something really stupid. I'm sure plenty of them partied, too. Perhaps they experimented with "the hippie experience" of the 70s, as well. It's just interesting because, those things that I see as irresponsible (or at least "unprofessional", depending on context and extent, mind you) that people my age to do, I can't bring myself to fully believe that that was the reality of these older adults when they were my age. It's just so strange. But I suppose we're programmed, though perhaps unintentionally, as children to think that way. Adults just have it together. That's reality to the young person. Unless I was somehow different in the respect. That's just how I've always seen it. Let me know if things were different for you, I'm interested.
All of this considered, it has recently made so much more sense to me (intuitively) why people seem to just not have it together in general. While I know plenty of things such as intelligence, overall motivation, etc. are bell curves, meaning most people are "average", I've begun to see that as irrelevant in some contexts. For example, when people post "funny" things on the internet about being a procrastinator. I don't find them funny at all. I'll admit it right now, when I was around middle school age I was an outcast, so that made it seem okay to have an condescending attitude towards people. Back then I would see those types of posts as an excuse. I would see it as something people do to make themselves feel better without doing anything to fix it. Because when I see a problem with myself (or anything else - yes, I was a grammar nazi at that age, too) I fix it. Immediately. Perhaps it can't be completely solved all at once, or even at all, but I just dive in and work to improve it. That's how I am. So I would be baffled to see people joke about being huge procrastinators instead of fixing it. Frankly, I still am, to an extent.
The thing is, however, I don't have it completely together, either. (Believe it or not... /sarcasm.) While there are certain aspects about myself that are within the higher percentiles of those bell curves, there are plenty others where I fall average or even below average. When I was a child, I would hear adults refer to me as "above average" quite often. I think that really stuck with me all these years, because I do tend to carry myself very highly. Which can be great in some contexts, but quite obviously bad in others, especially if it turns out not to be true. It's not even about being condescending... I try to look at myself in a very objective way. To analyze the data, not make an opinion. That's not a perfect system, either, of course, but it's something. I really do think that whole "above average" thing has been imprinted. As a result, I quite firmly believe that I belong somewhere along the spectrum of OCPD. Not surprising, I suppose. I find myself trying to be good at everything so that people see me as competent. (Though having broad skills can be nice, in itself.) It causes me a noticeable amount of stress, despite how unnecessary it is.
The point is, newsflash, the world is definitely not perfect! While I can't say that this realization will stop me from being a perfectionist, I think it's an important thing to remember. That it's an important thing to realize before you age too much. I think that realization will, over time, allow me to enjoy life a lot more. OCPD is characterized by general close-mindedness, and I don't really perceive myself as such. In fact, I really do like to think I'm quite open-minded.
... But I can always be better, right?
--M
Friday, November 1, 2013
Self-Identity and How People See Us
A few things prompted this post. Most recently being a blog post from one of my classmates related to blog content. There are posters around campus for a seminar of sorts on the subject of how others view us. But also due to this leadership program I'm involved in at my college.
We were instructed to ask a couple people to write letters to us individually about our strengths, weaknesses, fears, things to improve on, etc. Only to be read by us. I actually asked more than two people just because I was truly interested in how my successes and failures are perceived by others. It's interesting. I can only reliably know my own point of view and, although we all have been involved in discussions that bring these individual opinions out, I always find it enlightening to discuss yourself with others. While seemingly self-centered, I just can't put my finger on it... But there's something about asking people to truly, deeply share what they see in you that is so much more insightful than an opinion on any other subject.
Most of the time you only know what you think of yourself, with a few comments here and there. It all compounds when you try to hypothesize what others think of you. There are just so many possibilities... it's endless, really. I realized this quite recently whilst trying to elucidate why one of my friends stopped talking to me, without him talking to me. I created so many scenarios in my head as to what could have happened, but it got to a point where I realized I was wasting my time. No amount of thinking would reliably bring me close to the answer unless I could extract more information from him. But since that's impossible... I just let it go.
Back to the idea of these letters... I have only gotten one back so far, though the others should be in my hands soon enough. The one I did get back was from my dad. His letter was cute, because for some reason he wrote it about me instead of to me. As in, he would refer to me as "she" instead of "you". I asked him why he wrote it like that, but I'm not sure he got what he did wrong, haha. I do wish he would write another one, since it wasn't as personal and detailed as I was hoping it to be, but perhaps that's asking too much.
On the first read of it I didn't feel like I learned much. I was surprised about certain examples he used because they were things that I either don't remember well from my childhood or things that I don't emphasize myself. For example, he mentioned things about my art skills and the instruments I used to play... All things that, while they have contributed to who I am today, don't contribute much to how I define myself now. Maybe if music or art is context for something I will go back to it, but otherwise I find those sort of things to be overall irrelevant in describing myself right now. He also mentioned something about me getting jobs on my own, which I don't consider something worth emphasizing. Perhaps it stands out to him because my sister has never had a job, despite being the same age as me. But as I said, it's not something I think is important to mention. It seems like such a pedestrian thing. So it's interesting that he did.
But my father is my father. He watched me grow up. He knows a lot about me. Much more than practically anyone. It makes sense that he mentioned some things that might be a bit outdated. But it does make me wonder... For the people who have not known me quite as long, what sort of things do they emphasize? I suppose I'll find out soon enough.
My dad actually did point out, throughout his entire letter, one of the things I emphasize most about myself: intellect. Of course, not in a condescending way. Intellect is something I emphasize in the sense that being a scholar is a huge part of my own self-identity. If you read my first post, you will see that I mentioned it. In fact, I mention it everywhere. It doesn't matter what the platform is, if it involves a self-bio then something along the lines of, "Hello, I'm Melissa and I'm a biochemsitry major with psychology and physics minors, pre-MD/PhD!" is always included. Always. That's probably a bad idea, but it's what I do. Because I don't see any other overarching theme that would describe me any better. There are plenty of other ways I could describe myself, depending on the context. Some examples...
We were instructed to ask a couple people to write letters to us individually about our strengths, weaknesses, fears, things to improve on, etc. Only to be read by us. I actually asked more than two people just because I was truly interested in how my successes and failures are perceived by others. It's interesting. I can only reliably know my own point of view and, although we all have been involved in discussions that bring these individual opinions out, I always find it enlightening to discuss yourself with others. While seemingly self-centered, I just can't put my finger on it... But there's something about asking people to truly, deeply share what they see in you that is so much more insightful than an opinion on any other subject.
Most of the time you only know what you think of yourself, with a few comments here and there. It all compounds when you try to hypothesize what others think of you. There are just so many possibilities... it's endless, really. I realized this quite recently whilst trying to elucidate why one of my friends stopped talking to me, without him talking to me. I created so many scenarios in my head as to what could have happened, but it got to a point where I realized I was wasting my time. No amount of thinking would reliably bring me close to the answer unless I could extract more information from him. But since that's impossible... I just let it go.
Back to the idea of these letters... I have only gotten one back so far, though the others should be in my hands soon enough. The one I did get back was from my dad. His letter was cute, because for some reason he wrote it about me instead of to me. As in, he would refer to me as "she" instead of "you". I asked him why he wrote it like that, but I'm not sure he got what he did wrong, haha. I do wish he would write another one, since it wasn't as personal and detailed as I was hoping it to be, but perhaps that's asking too much.
On the first read of it I didn't feel like I learned much. I was surprised about certain examples he used because they were things that I either don't remember well from my childhood or things that I don't emphasize myself. For example, he mentioned things about my art skills and the instruments I used to play... All things that, while they have contributed to who I am today, don't contribute much to how I define myself now. Maybe if music or art is context for something I will go back to it, but otherwise I find those sort of things to be overall irrelevant in describing myself right now. He also mentioned something about me getting jobs on my own, which I don't consider something worth emphasizing. Perhaps it stands out to him because my sister has never had a job, despite being the same age as me. But as I said, it's not something I think is important to mention. It seems like such a pedestrian thing. So it's interesting that he did.
But my father is my father. He watched me grow up. He knows a lot about me. Much more than practically anyone. It makes sense that he mentioned some things that might be a bit outdated. But it does make me wonder... For the people who have not known me quite as long, what sort of things do they emphasize? I suppose I'll find out soon enough.
My dad actually did point out, throughout his entire letter, one of the things I emphasize most about myself: intellect. Of course, not in a condescending way. Intellect is something I emphasize in the sense that being a scholar is a huge part of my own self-identity. If you read my first post, you will see that I mentioned it. In fact, I mention it everywhere. It doesn't matter what the platform is, if it involves a self-bio then something along the lines of, "Hello, I'm Melissa and I'm a biochemsitry major with psychology and physics minors, pre-MD/PhD!" is always included. Always. That's probably a bad idea, but it's what I do. Because I don't see any other overarching theme that would describe me any better. There are plenty of other ways I could describe myself, depending on the context. Some examples...
- Straight edge
- WWE fan
- Blogger
- Health nut
- Introvert
- Perfectionist
- Fashionista
The list goes on, but honestly, even writing that short list I had to force myself to not include something involving academia or science. For example, I typed "tutor", "nerd", and "thinker", only to backspace after. It's just the first thing that comes to my mind because that's what I personally tend to emphasize.
I would like to assume that, due to all the emphasis I outwardly put on that when talking to other people about myself, that other people recognize it as a way to "categorize" me. But I wonder how much they emphasize it for me. Do these other people view me as much of a scholar as I view myself? Probably, though I'm sure it's not necessarily emphasized in the same way. For example, when people see me studying they usually say something like, "OMG you're always studying! Take a break, girl! Have some fun!" If I'm talking about my classes to this one person he usually says something like, "Yeah, well you're probably further ahead of me in the book, anyway." (Which is really ironic, because that's what I think of him, haha.)
The whole "studying too much" thing is certainly not what people think it is. People don't find me studying every time that I am nor do they see me when I'm not because I'm usually with my boyfriend or by myself in my room when I'm not out in the open for people to see I'm not studying. In fact, I wish I studied as much as people think I do. Recently I've been unable to do as much as I really want to because of some health struggles. But even when health hasn't been a major distractant, I have never been as perfectly studious as some people seem to think.
That also makes me wonder if there are people out there who have higher standards than that. If there are any people who see me as a poser. If the way I carry myself or the times people may see me studying is enough for them to believe I'm a "true" scholar. I always think there are, but mostly just in my head as a way to keep myself on track. I'm sure I'm the worst of it. But there are plenty of times where my academics are not going perfectly as planned, and in those moments, I feel like a huge poser. Or when people ask me questions I can't answer, especially if they're expecting me to have one. Do people actually perceive me as a poser, though? Maybe they don't if they haven't seen my grades. While I often get As (though not always), I rarely get 100s. I mean, on a 3-4 page organic lab report that I can edit and proofread 500 times, yes, I have gotten perfect scores on all but one. But I mean something like tests. Very rarely do I ever get a 100, but that's always my goal. I'm sure that's everyone's goal, actually, but I really do want to be at that level where not even my personal modes of thinking can get in the way. (All too often do I sit on some multiple choice where I can explain at least two of the answers logically.)
I suppose, to me, making mistakes and not having a perfect 4.0 suggests to people that I'm not quite as focused in my studies as I "claim" to be. Sometimes I feel like it's an excuse to say this, however, grades are not everything. They don't consider context. So it does give me slight social anxiety to think that some people may not realize the idea of context when it comes to grades. Some people are very likely to believe in what I fear... that not having a 4.0 means you are not super studious and you don't have a clear understanding of the material. That you're not interested enough in your work to do it all perfectly. I'm sure some people think that. I just can't please everyone, I try to tell myself. But it still does bother me. Because I try to be very clear and detailed in the messages I send to people (whether written, spoken, or demonstrated through body language... as I'm sure you can tell). I don't want people to get the wrong idea, but I know some will. It's simply inevitable.
I suppose, to me, making mistakes and not having a perfect 4.0 suggests to people that I'm not quite as focused in my studies as I "claim" to be. Sometimes I feel like it's an excuse to say this, however, grades are not everything. They don't consider context. So it does give me slight social anxiety to think that some people may not realize the idea of context when it comes to grades. Some people are very likely to believe in what I fear... that not having a 4.0 means you are not super studious and you don't have a clear understanding of the material. That you're not interested enough in your work to do it all perfectly. I'm sure some people think that. I just can't please everyone, I try to tell myself. But it still does bother me. Because I try to be very clear and detailed in the messages I send to people (whether written, spoken, or demonstrated through body language... as I'm sure you can tell). I don't want people to get the wrong idea, but I know some will. It's simply inevitable.
I think I'll end with that for now. This is getting much too long and I'm too exhausted to try and edit it down right now. I'm sure I'll come back to the subject later, especially when I get the rest of my letters back.
--M
Saturday, October 26, 2013
An Introduction
Hello, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Melissa and I'm an undergraduate student majoring in biochemistry with a minor in physics, all with the aim of getting into a MD/PhD program and pursuing my dreams as an academic. I know the specifics will change through the years, so I hesitate to say exactly what I plan to do. All I know is that I have a passion for learning about the world around me and that I love knowledge. I don't have many hobbies. I like to spend time with my boyfriend of several years, watch wrestling, write for blogs and newspapers, and I enjoy fashion. I suppose you could say learning is a hobby of mine, and I consider being an academic to be an important part of my self-identity. I really do question what my life would be like if I never found academia as the wonderful thing it is.
Anyway.
I have a blog on Tumblr which has had great success, but I decided to branch off into a blogger blog because I felt that I needed something that didn't have any "filler". (You know, all those reblogged pictures of fit people, food, recipes, random stuff I like, etc.) I've kind of gotten away from the original purpose of the blog, so I wanted something more focused. Not so much in the sense of being on one specific topic, but something that is completely mine. All posts written by me. I don't necessarily aim to educate with this blog. This blog is not going to be about regurgitating information to people. I might post some of my study strategies, something like that, but I aim more to discuss. To think.
I'm not sure when I'll "officially" start this blog. But I'm excited nonetheless.
--M
Anyway.
I have a blog on Tumblr which has had great success, but I decided to branch off into a blogger blog because I felt that I needed something that didn't have any "filler". (You know, all those reblogged pictures of fit people, food, recipes, random stuff I like, etc.) I've kind of gotten away from the original purpose of the blog, so I wanted something more focused. Not so much in the sense of being on one specific topic, but something that is completely mine. All posts written by me. I don't necessarily aim to educate with this blog. This blog is not going to be about regurgitating information to people. I might post some of my study strategies, something like that, but I aim more to discuss. To think.
I'm not sure when I'll "officially" start this blog. But I'm excited nonetheless.
--M
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)