I have pretty bad hearing, especially when it comes to phone calls, so when a guy from Bank of America called to set up an interview, I completely missed his name & had to call him back to ask for it again. I tried to keep the conversation as short as possible to spare myself the embarrassment, but before I hung up, he asked, "Are you a runner?" I was caught off guard. Did I run? What kind of a question was that? "Oh no, I'm not." I replied, laughing uneasily, expecting an explanation to this unexpected question. But he just said, "OK, see you Monday then," and hung up.
I was left wondering whether or not he was some sort of creepy character whom I would have to work for, for an entire summer. And sure enough, this morning, I was greeted by a short, skinny, middle-aged man with a spiky piercing in his left ear. I also spied one of those therapeutic baseball necklaces around his neck, underneath his plaid shirt. "Very professional," I thought. Maybe my speculation about his creepiness did have some merit afterall.
I've done a dozen interviews before, but this one really made me think. I really didn't know what I ultimately wanted to do in life. Was I supposed to pull out some bullshit answer like become a manager of an investment firm? Start my own fashion line? Invest in high-end restaurants? Sure, those were things I want to do, but they sounded silly, even inside my head. I have no idea what's it's like to do any of those things, so I just gave him the truth: "I don't think I've figured that out yet."
But, I did tell him that right now, at least, I'm interested in the psychology of consumers and how that factors into their decision-making. Luckily, it struck a conversation. I sat in my seat, nodding and sprinkling a few "mhmm's" and "right's" here and there while trying to wade through corporate-speak in order to understand the essentials of what he was saying. Hopefully, I didn't look like a deer caught in headlights. I'm sure part of his speeches were gimmicks to motivate me even before I started and to show me how interesting and valuable it would be to work for him, but I believed it. I haven't talked to too many people of his, ranking, let's say, but I wondered and hoped that every manager I would encounter in the future would be like him-- not the creepy part, but the no-bullshit and motivating part.
Sure, I've been in leadership positions before, but I don't think I've really reached the pinnacle of what it means to be a leader, bringing out the best in others and capitalizing on the unique skills of individuals. Perhaps I'll be able to take a few lessons from Mr. Single-Piercing and give it my own Mary flair. But before I get ahead of myself, I think I'll just try to master office duties and work on figuring how what the hell it is that I want to do in life.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
My Sister's Keeper
I get really excited when the title of the book somehow makes its way into the characters' dialogue or the narration. I also get really excited when someone in a movie says the title of the movie. Scary how this little pleasure of mine resembles one of Peter Griffin's quirks. Oh dear.
But honestly, it's like an "AHA!" moment. I was pretty excited to have experienced one last night:
Julia: "Where's your sister, Anna?"
Jesse: "I'm not my sister's keeper."
Guess the title of the book :D
But, I don't get AS excited when the title of the movie/book is someone's name. Like Forrest Gump (which I watched for the first time last Saturday) or Marley or Harry Potter and the. . .
I realized that I've never written a book review or a movie review before. I think I'm going to try my hand at doing each of those. . .along with a restaurant review. Being the Epicurean that I am, the latter would probably come more easily. We'll see.
But honestly, it's like an "AHA!" moment. I was pretty excited to have experienced one last night:
Julia: "Where's your sister, Anna?"
Jesse: "I'm not my sister's keeper."
Guess the title of the book :D
But, I don't get AS excited when the title of the movie/book is someone's name. Like Forrest Gump (which I watched for the first time last Saturday) or Marley or Harry Potter and the. . .
I realized that I've never written a book review or a movie review before. I think I'm going to try my hand at doing each of those. . .along with a restaurant review. Being the Epicurean that I am, the latter would probably come more easily. We'll see.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Chem-culus & Animal Spirits
It's the first sunny day in since Tuesday, not the kind of day that would provoke people to visit the high school that they recently graduated from, but I did anyway.
The new members of the SGA were awkwardly trying to put together the Teacher Appreciation Luncheon, as they have yet to get to know each other and develop a special bond the the SGA always develops by the end of Homecoming crazies. I quickly moved on to Mr. Siegert's room, hoping to catch him before all the teachers were called down to lunch (so that I would not have to approach him, and other teachers DURING the meal, which sort of makes for an awkward encounter). There, I found Pattie, talking with the jolly, Haiwaiian-shirt-clad Mr. Siegert. "Ready for lunch?" He asked me. "Oh you mean the SGA luncheon?" "No, Pattie & Jesse made pizza for us, we're just about to head over to Mr. Astri's room."
Yes! Finally, I would be able to witness two of my favorite teachers together in one room--- granted, it still would be in a classroom setting, but school had long ended and the prospect of summer was upon us. The only person missing was Dr. Klingaman, whom would complete my Holy Trinity of favorite teachers of all time.
In Astri's room, of course, we found Teresa, who seems to have made Room 506 her second home. The five of us sat in somewhat of a circular formation with Siegert and Astri facing each other, Teresa and I next to each other and Pattie across from us. As we reminisced about the funny, miserable and memorable incidents from our Chemistry and Calculus classes, the two of them talked about their former students-- the strange, ingenious and sometimes downright crazy.
While Mr. Siegert remarked about how quiet one kid was, Astri went further to exclaim: "Omar's mother once came to a parent teacher conference and was very concerned about his social skills. And I told her, 'You don't have to be concerned because he doesn't have any!'"
I sat back, thinking that the two are indeed a dynamic duo, one setting up the other's jokes. Siegert brought out a talkative and jovial side of Astri that is often a rarity hidden in his biting scarcasm and zen-like movements. It was certainly a treat to see the two of them together.
But, I still find that conversation comes more easily with Dr. K than with anyone else. Maybe it's because he has read the college essays in which I poured out the most of myself. Or maybe as more humanities-oriented people, we have more in common with each other and we're intrigued by the same things. There's something very familiar about his absent-minded-ness and spontaneous exclamations like "Hotdog!"
At any rate, it was an interesting day.
The new members of the SGA were awkwardly trying to put together the Teacher Appreciation Luncheon, as they have yet to get to know each other and develop a special bond the the SGA always develops by the end of Homecoming crazies. I quickly moved on to Mr. Siegert's room, hoping to catch him before all the teachers were called down to lunch (so that I would not have to approach him, and other teachers DURING the meal, which sort of makes for an awkward encounter). There, I found Pattie, talking with the jolly, Haiwaiian-shirt-clad Mr. Siegert. "Ready for lunch?" He asked me. "Oh you mean the SGA luncheon?" "No, Pattie & Jesse made pizza for us, we're just about to head over to Mr. Astri's room."
Yes! Finally, I would be able to witness two of my favorite teachers together in one room--- granted, it still would be in a classroom setting, but school had long ended and the prospect of summer was upon us. The only person missing was Dr. Klingaman, whom would complete my Holy Trinity of favorite teachers of all time.
In Astri's room, of course, we found Teresa, who seems to have made Room 506 her second home. The five of us sat in somewhat of a circular formation with Siegert and Astri facing each other, Teresa and I next to each other and Pattie across from us. As we reminisced about the funny, miserable and memorable incidents from our Chemistry and Calculus classes, the two of them talked about their former students-- the strange, ingenious and sometimes downright crazy.
While Mr. Siegert remarked about how quiet one kid was, Astri went further to exclaim: "Omar's mother once came to a parent teacher conference and was very concerned about his social skills. And I told her, 'You don't have to be concerned because he doesn't have any!'"
I sat back, thinking that the two are indeed a dynamic duo, one setting up the other's jokes. Siegert brought out a talkative and jovial side of Astri that is often a rarity hidden in his biting scarcasm and zen-like movements. It was certainly a treat to see the two of them together.
But, I still find that conversation comes more easily with Dr. K than with anyone else. Maybe it's because he has read the college essays in which I poured out the most of myself. Or maybe as more humanities-oriented people, we have more in common with each other and we're intrigued by the same things. There's something very familiar about his absent-minded-ness and spontaneous exclamations like "Hotdog!"
At any rate, it was an interesting day.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
His Majesty's Psyche
1. Two nights ago, part of my dream was that my Hum class was supposed to be the defense attorneys for King Henry VIII. We had to defend his religious, political and personal actions. Tom & Ida in particular were freaking out because they couldn't agree with his actions enough to force themselves to defend his majesty. Haha. Thank goodness I only have 5 more episodes of Season 2 left to watch!
2. I just finished a pretty good book titled Sway. It's about irrational behavior, a mix of psychology & business because it not only examines why people make irrational decisions when the rational decision seems obvious, it also relates it to consumers and businessmen. It cites many examples of experiments where people misjudge people and items simply because of the surroundings that they've been placed in. For example, Joshua Bell, a world famous violinist, wore street clothes & took is $3.5 million Stradivarius violin down to the DC metro to do street performances. He played the same pieces that he would play on his world tours, but very few people stopped to listen, or even looked at him. They dismissed him as just another street performer simply because he wasn't dressed in a tuxedo & he wasn't playing in a great concert hall. The pedestrians didn't think that he was worth the time for them to stop and listen or worth a $1 donation. So throughout the book, one of the reoccurring themes is loss aversion. People hate losing, so the bigger the loss, the authors claim that the more likely it is for people to engage in irrational behaviors. For example, you have a setback on your drive by 10 minutes. So, you're more tempted to weave in & out of lanes in order to get past slow drivers to make up for the lost time. If you lost 15 or 20 minutes, you would probably think even more seriously about speeding and driving recklessly. But the authors caution us against weighing our losses so heavily because in the grand scheme of things, 10 minutes isn't really a long time, especially if you could prevent yourself from getting in an accident and saving your life. So everything should be viewed in the grand scheme of things. I think I have trouble with that concept. Maybe it'll be something I can work on so I don't freak out when I lose hundreds of dollars at a time in a fiscal quarter when I should be thinking in millions.
3. So as I was reading about the labels that people give to others, I was thinking about how it's pretty hard not to generalize or simplify people whom we meet. First, when someone asks you to give a description of a person you just met, you would probably only be able to describe a few things that stood out about them, or the overall feeling that you got from the person by using just a few words. "Oh, he was pretty neatly dressed and courteous. He kept the conversation going, so I found him pretty easy to talk to. Nice guy." I think we automatically pinpoint a person whom we meet for the first time to a few details in addition to the overall feeling we got about him/her because it's the only way for us to intake the info in such a short time. Perhaps that's why later on (in addition to other factors such as the person being more comfortable around you, etc. of course), when we interact with that person more, we find that our 1st impressions were untrue. Or we discover things about the person that we didn't and couldn't pick up on at first. Perhaps he has a tendency to laugh at everything even when it's not funny, but at first, you thought that his laughter was just being friendly. I wonder if it's possible to not judge a person at all when you first meet them. I think it's pretty hard because we're always looking for people who can relate to us, so we tend to like people who made us laugh at the first encounter, or wore something that we liked or told a story that was similar to something that happened in our own lives. I guess that's what separates true friends from just friends in the long run, because we are able to accept the differences in our true friends and recognize them as individuals with unique talents, characteristics, opinions and experiences.
4. I have yet to write something about love or relationships. I feel like I'm wearing rose colored glasses, which would probably prohibit me from writing. . .rawly (err I couldn't find a better word lol). Maybe after a few months, I'll write about long distance relationships.
2. I just finished a pretty good book titled Sway. It's about irrational behavior, a mix of psychology & business because it not only examines why people make irrational decisions when the rational decision seems obvious, it also relates it to consumers and businessmen. It cites many examples of experiments where people misjudge people and items simply because of the surroundings that they've been placed in. For example, Joshua Bell, a world famous violinist, wore street clothes & took is $3.5 million Stradivarius violin down to the DC metro to do street performances. He played the same pieces that he would play on his world tours, but very few people stopped to listen, or even looked at him. They dismissed him as just another street performer simply because he wasn't dressed in a tuxedo & he wasn't playing in a great concert hall. The pedestrians didn't think that he was worth the time for them to stop and listen or worth a $1 donation. So throughout the book, one of the reoccurring themes is loss aversion. People hate losing, so the bigger the loss, the authors claim that the more likely it is for people to engage in irrational behaviors. For example, you have a setback on your drive by 10 minutes. So, you're more tempted to weave in & out of lanes in order to get past slow drivers to make up for the lost time. If you lost 15 or 20 minutes, you would probably think even more seriously about speeding and driving recklessly. But the authors caution us against weighing our losses so heavily because in the grand scheme of things, 10 minutes isn't really a long time, especially if you could prevent yourself from getting in an accident and saving your life. So everything should be viewed in the grand scheme of things. I think I have trouble with that concept. Maybe it'll be something I can work on so I don't freak out when I lose hundreds of dollars at a time in a fiscal quarter when I should be thinking in millions.
3. So as I was reading about the labels that people give to others, I was thinking about how it's pretty hard not to generalize or simplify people whom we meet. First, when someone asks you to give a description of a person you just met, you would probably only be able to describe a few things that stood out about them, or the overall feeling that you got from the person by using just a few words. "Oh, he was pretty neatly dressed and courteous. He kept the conversation going, so I found him pretty easy to talk to. Nice guy." I think we automatically pinpoint a person whom we meet for the first time to a few details in addition to the overall feeling we got about him/her because it's the only way for us to intake the info in such a short time. Perhaps that's why later on (in addition to other factors such as the person being more comfortable around you, etc. of course), when we interact with that person more, we find that our 1st impressions were untrue. Or we discover things about the person that we didn't and couldn't pick up on at first. Perhaps he has a tendency to laugh at everything even when it's not funny, but at first, you thought that his laughter was just being friendly. I wonder if it's possible to not judge a person at all when you first meet them. I think it's pretty hard because we're always looking for people who can relate to us, so we tend to like people who made us laugh at the first encounter, or wore something that we liked or told a story that was similar to something that happened in our own lives. I guess that's what separates true friends from just friends in the long run, because we are able to accept the differences in our true friends and recognize them as individuals with unique talents, characteristics, opinions and experiences.
4. I have yet to write something about love or relationships. I feel like I'm wearing rose colored glasses, which would probably prohibit me from writing. . .rawly (err I couldn't find a better word lol). Maybe after a few months, I'll write about long distance relationships.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Let there be. . .babies?
I really think it's unfair that women alone have to bear the burden of childbirth. I mean, if you believe in the Old Testament, wasn't the woman created FROM the man? So then how did it all of a sudden become that the woman had the responsibility of carrying a child inside of her for 9 whole months?
While watching The Tudors, I've been reminded of this injustice again. Even though Henry VIII was a bit despotic, stubborn, lusty & tyrannical, he didn't have to try to divorce or kill off his wives one after another simply because none of them (save Jane Seymour, but she died of scarlet fever due to complications during birth anyway) could give him a son. First of all, it's extremely unfair for the woman to be punished, for something that's only half her fault. Second of all, it's not as if the baby suddenly changes gender in the middle of the pregnancy by the fault of the mother. But, I do have to admit that people were extremely superstitious back then & they all thought that because the queen could not give birth to a son, God was punishing the couple, the marriage is null in the eyes of God, etc.
So what has this childbearing matter metamorphisized into in our time period? Well, for one thing, before women gained more rights (not only in the US, but everywhere else), they were pretty much expected to stay at home in order to have children, take care of the children & to maintain the household. So being a mother was a permanent and perpetual career, practically. But, as soon as women were given more options, education and opportunities, this whole childbearing issue has become some what of a burden. So what, we're expected to pause our lives for 6 months (because I guess you're OK to do stuff for the 1st 3 months or so) & then another month after that to recover & to take care of a newborn child? Sure, employers give women maternity leave, but honestly, do you really expect to pick up your career right where you left it? And don't you think that the men who started working at the same time that you did didn't get promotions and bonuses in your absence? I won't go into the minute details about how anesthesia is bad for your brain, how you will probably be the one waking up in the middle of the night to take care of the baby, which will make you tired and sleep deprived, which is not good for the work environment. . .
At least male favoritism has died away for the most part.
I'm still pretty young, and definitely too young to make up my mind about a lot of aspects of my future, let alone marriage & childbirth. But I think one of the things I'm going to have to face is deciding between being a family-oriented woman & a career-driven woman. I'm not sure that there are enough hours in the day for me to be successful at being both. . .unless I was some how able to run a company from the comfort of my own home or take my child to work haha. Actually, my sister & I have been raised very differently. My dad was going to grad school in Thailand so my mom raised me up to the age of 4 on her on pretty much. And she went to work at the same time. I spent the first year or two with various nannies & eventually went to preschool, where I was always the last kid to get picked up. You would think that I was extremely withdrawn, introverted and unhappy, but I don't think I was. Being raised by a pseudo single mother only made me more independent and outgoing. My sister on the other hand, has never left my mom's side and she used to cry when either my Dad or I had to dress her in the morning on the weekends whenever my mom went grocery shopping. It was always "No, Mommy doesn't put this arm in first" or "That's not how you're supposed to brush my hair." It's interesting to see how different we were and how different we've become. I think no matter what I decide to do for my kids, they will always have flaws, whether it be the fault of my disciplining or not. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to try to do what's best for them.
So, who knows when or if I'm going to have kids. And who knows how I'm going to raise them. But, I do know that I'm definitely NOT going to send mine to Catholic/boarding/private school. I had a nightmare about that the other night (shudder).
While watching The Tudors, I've been reminded of this injustice again. Even though Henry VIII was a bit despotic, stubborn, lusty & tyrannical, he didn't have to try to divorce or kill off his wives one after another simply because none of them (save Jane Seymour, but she died of scarlet fever due to complications during birth anyway) could give him a son. First of all, it's extremely unfair for the woman to be punished, for something that's only half her fault. Second of all, it's not as if the baby suddenly changes gender in the middle of the pregnancy by the fault of the mother. But, I do have to admit that people were extremely superstitious back then & they all thought that because the queen could not give birth to a son, God was punishing the couple, the marriage is null in the eyes of God, etc.
So what has this childbearing matter metamorphisized into in our time period? Well, for one thing, before women gained more rights (not only in the US, but everywhere else), they were pretty much expected to stay at home in order to have children, take care of the children & to maintain the household. So being a mother was a permanent and perpetual career, practically. But, as soon as women were given more options, education and opportunities, this whole childbearing issue has become some what of a burden. So what, we're expected to pause our lives for 6 months (because I guess you're OK to do stuff for the 1st 3 months or so) & then another month after that to recover & to take care of a newborn child? Sure, employers give women maternity leave, but honestly, do you really expect to pick up your career right where you left it? And don't you think that the men who started working at the same time that you did didn't get promotions and bonuses in your absence? I won't go into the minute details about how anesthesia is bad for your brain, how you will probably be the one waking up in the middle of the night to take care of the baby, which will make you tired and sleep deprived, which is not good for the work environment. . .
At least male favoritism has died away for the most part.
I'm still pretty young, and definitely too young to make up my mind about a lot of aspects of my future, let alone marriage & childbirth. But I think one of the things I'm going to have to face is deciding between being a family-oriented woman & a career-driven woman. I'm not sure that there are enough hours in the day for me to be successful at being both. . .unless I was some how able to run a company from the comfort of my own home or take my child to work haha. Actually, my sister & I have been raised very differently. My dad was going to grad school in Thailand so my mom raised me up to the age of 4 on her on pretty much. And she went to work at the same time. I spent the first year or two with various nannies & eventually went to preschool, where I was always the last kid to get picked up. You would think that I was extremely withdrawn, introverted and unhappy, but I don't think I was. Being raised by a pseudo single mother only made me more independent and outgoing. My sister on the other hand, has never left my mom's side and she used to cry when either my Dad or I had to dress her in the morning on the weekends whenever my mom went grocery shopping. It was always "No, Mommy doesn't put this arm in first" or "That's not how you're supposed to brush my hair." It's interesting to see how different we were and how different we've become. I think no matter what I decide to do for my kids, they will always have flaws, whether it be the fault of my disciplining or not. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to try to do what's best for them.
So, who knows when or if I'm going to have kids. And who knows how I'm going to raise them. But, I do know that I'm definitely NOT going to send mine to Catholic/boarding/private school. I had a nightmare about that the other night (shudder).
Thursday, June 11, 2009
When I was young
There's a song that I used to love called "Yesterday Once More" by the Carpenters. It's a really old song and it goes something like this:
When I was young
I used to listen to the radio,
Waiting for my favorite songs
And when they played I'd sing along
It made me smile.
Those were such happy times
And not so long ago
That I wonder where they'd gone.
But they're back again,
Just like a long lost friend,
All the songs I loved so well. . .
It's a really nonchalant and sort of nostalgic song that I just remembered today because I was discussing people's upbringings with someone and this song was one of those things that I'll always remember about my childhood.
He said that there are so many factors that shape a person's personality. It almost makes me feel as if it's impossible to change a person so easily because there is so much history and so many interrelated factors that you must change or eradicate in order to change that part of the person's personality.
For instance, I guess I still have the need to be in the center of attention, though that part of me has been quelled over the years. In preschool in China, I would rally all the kids to dance on the tables. And in Thailand, I would recite Chinese poems one after another to a gushing crowd of grad students just to feel like the smartest, most loved little girl in the world. And once I entered school, I would always raise my hand to answer questions or burst out with an answer even when I wasn't called upon. I'm not sure where this love for attention comes from, but I'm sure if someone wanted to change that about me, they would have to change the fact that I'm outgoing by nature, fearless as a child and so forth. Where does it stop? It doesn't. It makes me wonder how much do you have to try in order to change something about yourself and how much influence do you need to have on someone to motivate them to change?
For me, this has always been a problem. I always wish that I have the power to be able to influence someone to change for the better, or to be able to change people's beliefs such as racism. But I know that to change someone is to practically erase their entire former existence and to start their life all over again, and to eradicate the roots of racism would be to change the genetic makeup of the human race so that there is no difference in the way we have all been created. And that, is an impossible task.
And so, I guess my new task should just be to accept the past and deal with the present. I won't let it be yesterday once more.
P.S. How do I change my time? It's like 4 hours off from EST.
When I was young
I used to listen to the radio,
Waiting for my favorite songs
And when they played I'd sing along
It made me smile.
Those were such happy times
And not so long ago
That I wonder where they'd gone.
But they're back again,
Just like a long lost friend,
All the songs I loved so well. . .
It's a really nonchalant and sort of nostalgic song that I just remembered today because I was discussing people's upbringings with someone and this song was one of those things that I'll always remember about my childhood.
He said that there are so many factors that shape a person's personality. It almost makes me feel as if it's impossible to change a person so easily because there is so much history and so many interrelated factors that you must change or eradicate in order to change that part of the person's personality.
For instance, I guess I still have the need to be in the center of attention, though that part of me has been quelled over the years. In preschool in China, I would rally all the kids to dance on the tables. And in Thailand, I would recite Chinese poems one after another to a gushing crowd of grad students just to feel like the smartest, most loved little girl in the world. And once I entered school, I would always raise my hand to answer questions or burst out with an answer even when I wasn't called upon. I'm not sure where this love for attention comes from, but I'm sure if someone wanted to change that about me, they would have to change the fact that I'm outgoing by nature, fearless as a child and so forth. Where does it stop? It doesn't. It makes me wonder how much do you have to try in order to change something about yourself and how much influence do you need to have on someone to motivate them to change?
For me, this has always been a problem. I always wish that I have the power to be able to influence someone to change for the better, or to be able to change people's beliefs such as racism. But I know that to change someone is to practically erase their entire former existence and to start their life all over again, and to eradicate the roots of racism would be to change the genetic makeup of the human race so that there is no difference in the way we have all been created. And that, is an impossible task.
And so, I guess my new task should just be to accept the past and deal with the present. I won't let it be yesterday once more.
P.S. How do I change my time? It's like 4 hours off from EST.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The First of Many
I've always used Blogspot for school projects (whenever teachers asks us to create stupid, useless websites). So this will be my first time using this host as a personal blog. I have to admit, it's hard to part with Xanga, the main blogging community used by my peers during the middle school years. Too bad my first few xangas have already been deleted and destroyed, because I really wish I could go back to them and have a good laugh at my naiveity. Since I joined Xanga, much of my thoughts were recorded online as oposed to a diary. Thus, the only record of my teenage angst and trivial daily activities have been lost in cyberspace. FOREVER (DUNDUNDUN).
Anyway, I suppose it will take some getting used to, this whole Blogspot business. But I hope that leaving Xanga will be a good step towards making a more meaningful blog, separate from my middle school and high school years. So here's to progress.
Cheers,
M
Anyway, I suppose it will take some getting used to, this whole Blogspot business. But I hope that leaving Xanga will be a good step towards making a more meaningful blog, separate from my middle school and high school years. So here's to progress.
Cheers,
M
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
