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
No comments:
Post a Comment