No one right way

I have often, over the course of the past few months, found myself conflicted. I would wonder if I was making the right choices. The choices varied, but I guess the easiest way to unify them is to say they were mainly purchasing decisions.

I have started being more aware of the way my choices as a consumer affect the world at large, and as a result, wondering at every step whether I should be making my consumer choices differently. Should I be buying more produce at the farmer's market? Should I go thrifting more? Should I frequent Craigslist?

My roommate has a thing for antiques and restoring furniture. She peruses Craislist and frequents the Habitat for Humanity ReStore in town, finds promising pieces, and typically refinishes them to make them amazing. My other roommate (who just moved out) was into a similar hobby, though in a slightly different style. She also managed to find amazing things on Craigslist.  I totally admire and slightly envy their talent at this. It's an idea I can get behind.

My parents house is furnished with a combination of mismatched Target/Walmart bookshelves, furniture they got secondhand when my dad was a grad student (kitchen table and chairs, nice wood desk, nice wood chest of drawers, my dad's metal office desk).  The secondhand pieces are actually quite nice, but they've never been restored, updated, or fixed, except for the kitchen chairs, which my mom reupholstered a few times. Point is, most of those decisions were made based on utility on a tight budget and not appearances or style of any kind. Which I totally respect, also; raising a family of 4-5 on a grad student stipend and a postdoc salary would not be an easy task! 

So, between these two mindsets, one that I grew up with and one that I have been living around, and both of which I respect (choose high quality but used and restore it vs choose low quality but cheap and take care of it), when it came time to buy additional furniture for my new room, I found myself having issues.

I felt guilty when I didn't like anything on Craigslist or at the ReStore.  I felt guilty when I did not like any of the cheaper options ($15 black bookshelf from Target, $100 metal futon). But what it came down to, for me, was that I wanted what I wanted, within reason. Frankly, if I couldn't find options that fit within a reasonable budget, I would probably have done without rather than get what I didn't like for utility alone.

I'm not on as tight a budget as my parents were. And now, when they are on a budget with more wiggle room, they are starting to get nicer things.  Furthermore, I think I'm bothered more by things that look mismatched. On the other hand, I'm not as interested in tracking down deals or vintage items as my roommates.  Carefully handled particleboard can last for years and years, as we have found, and I currently have too many projects lying around unfinished to add more to that queue, as much as it would be fun to work on some furniture. It's just too much effort for the satisfaction I would get; it would be more productive to fix my bike  (which I still plan to do, instead of buying one, or before buying one, at any rate).

So, the upshot of ALL this? I need to remember that there's more than one way to make any decision, and what's right for my friends may not be right for me.  This goes for more than just buying choices. Same goes for planning a work/study/workout schedule, choosing a diet plan and how to stick with it, etc. I feel like people are always advocating their systems and their values, and as much as those make sense to me and I can respect them, that doesn't mean they are right for me. Even the values I was brought up with.

Healthcare as a design problem

I don't think it's any secret that this country has a problem in its healthcare system. The even bigger problem is, EVERY country has this problem. It simply hasn't been figured out yet. I'm not drafting legislation and I'm not starting a business; I'm simply pondering. So I haven't done in-depth research, but rather recalled tidbits from documentaries watched, articles read, and arguments had. Some of this is probably my own deeply held convictions.  But I really wanted to organize my thoughts...what DO I think about all these different systems? Because there are valid arguments on both the 'socialist' and 'libertarian' sides of the spectrum, and to come up with a reasonable solution, both these sides need to be considered, carefully.


Some ideas snatched from the air (I mean, internet):
1) The current system profits from sickness, not health.  Hospitals, doctors, nurses, clinics, pharmacies, and drug companies earn profits only when people require treatment. If these services are operated as businesses, their goal is to increase profits, either by decreasing costs or increasing their 'customer base' i.e. number of patients. High quality patient care becomes a secondary concern (a means to an end of attracting patients, unnecessary if patients have nowhere else to go).
2) Competition between healthcare providers is actually highly limited. There may only be one hospital that is accessible in a geographical area. It is further limited by insurance companies that limit a patient's choice of providers to those within their 'network.'
3) Lots of money is lost in the insurance system: administrative costs, processing claims, insurance company profits, etc.
4) Current insurance and healthcare costs are out of reach for many people, even those steadily employed.
5) The individuals most in need of healthcare are often the least able to pay for it. They and/or their families must incur massive debt and/or declare bankruptcy.
6) Getting sick or injured is largely a matter of chance; a person with a perfectly active and healthy lifestyle can still come down with cancer and is probably more likely to break a bone (e.g. skiing).
7) There is an uncomfortable partnership between employers and healthcare. There exist healthcare practices that are considered immoral by certain groups of people (e.g. blood transfusions, abortion, contraception). The current system allows an employer to impose their moral compass on employees.
8) A civilized society has a responsibility to its members, as a group. To exist as a collection of independent individuals is to be in a state of anarchy.


From the other side:
1) The market solution applies from the 'customer' perspective; having to pay for treatment is an incentive to take care of oneself; there is some control over preventing minor illnesses and chronic diseases through lifestyle choices.
2) Customers have the choice to buy insurance and/or establish an emergency fund or deal with the consequences of not taking these actions.
3) It is not fair to take money from one person to pay for services offered another, without the consent of the first.
4) Government programs are not subject to competition, which removes the incentive for effectiveness. There is an argument that a government program will accomplish less with more money than a market solution.
5) Socialized medicine gives government lots of control over citizen's lives. Even if we except direct, clearly unethical interference, this can allow systematic propaganda for or against specific health practices. 


Hard truths:
1) Depriving someone of lifesaving medical care is condemning them to death. This holds true for penicillin for pneumonia or chemotherapy for cancer. The Declaration of Independence establishes 'unalienable rights' first and foremost 'to life,' then 'liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' A major founding principle of the USA is that people have the right TO LIFE. HOWEVER, it is clear that it is not possible (as in, we do not have the resources) to provide every individual with every treatment. It is not possible to know ahead of time that a treatment will be successful, hasten death, or postpone it only briefly.  There is an element of risk and probability. THEREFORE, the healthcare system will necessarily offer some individuals more care than others. The question becomes, what criteria will be used for this determination. Is affluence really a just, moral criterion for this?
2) Given the choice between curing a 5 year old of leukemia or a 90 year old of lung cancer, assuming equal chance of success, who do we pick? How about a successful car mechanic versus a successful venture capitalist? Doctor or medical researcher? If we provide half treatment to both, most likely outcome is both will die, but withholding treatment from both makes it a sure thing. The hard truth is this: logically, different individuals have different value to society, although morally (in most systems I am familiar with) all lives have equal weight.
2b) Regarding age, specifically, should the fact that several decades vs several months or years of healthy life will be gained from a cure affect the choice of who to cure?
3) Eliminating the option to exchange personal or family money for treatment will undoubtedly cause corruption and bribery due to the high value we place on life. And also the desirability of money.
4) "Life is not fair." Some will get sick and some will not. Some will have the money to pay for all the treatment they can get, and some will not. 


Case studies:
1) Colleges typically have 'health centers' providing basic care for common conditions to students for a flat fee of a few hundred dollars per semester (but also subsidized by the institution). Services that may be offered include  doctor visits for treatment of minor illnesses or injuries, women's health services, consultation for various non-illness issues (e.g. weight loss), vaccines, and pharmacy services. Not all services are offered by doctors; some are by registered nurses, or 'advanced' nurses as their qualifications allow; this increases efficiency since the most advanced training is reserved only for the cases that require it, rather than routine tests/exams.  
Could this be extended to a larger demographic? I see it as a sort of 'gym membership' type of arrangement--you find a center that suits your needs with the right group of professionals, pay a monthly or annual fee, and have your routine and incidental  care covered. Use may vary but it wouldn't make sense to cease it entirely in case something happened, and the cost would be predictable. Furthermore, the flat fee system gives professionals (centers) an incentive to promote lifestyle health rather than treat individual conditions--the less their customers visit, the more customers they can serve, the more profit they can make. This would also promote competition between centers; those that result in the most healthful lifestyles (and therefore efficient operation) can afford to offer cheaper services than others.
2) Car insurance.  Typically, it is not expected to cover routine maintenance, but rather catastrophic events.  You pay a small fee regularly but due to a large customer base and a low incidence of catastrophes, the insurance company can pay for very expensive car repair, property damage, or medical fees.  I have heard an argument that medical insurance should function the same way; that it makes sense for hundred-thousand dollar surgeries or emergency room visits, but not so much for regular care.  I could see this system working if something else provided routine care. See Case Study #1.
3) Religious communities (e.g. Amish?) I don't know much about this but I recall reading that certain isolated communities (Amish?) did not subscribe to the insurance model, but rather had a community fund which could be drawn upon if deemed necessary. This seems a bit of a 'rose by any other name' situation to me, but it merits mentioning. I don't know how well it works.


Design criteria:
Basically, the problem comes down the design of a system to meet certain needs within certain limitations. Perhaps this is an engineering way of looking at it, but i am an engineer!  The requirements, as I see it, are:
1) Provide a basic level of routine/incidental care to every individual (at reasonable cost, which means free to the poor).
     1a) ESPECIALLY important for CHILDREN.
2) Provide advanced treatment (e.g. hospital, surgery, emergency) with ethics and justice, to maximize societal benefit and happiness.
3) Free of direct government control, though perhaps uniformly subsidized or otherwise supported.
2) Encourage competition to promote efficiency and effectiveness.
3) Profit the business and the customer from increased health, not treatment. Or, alternatively, be universally non-profit.
5) Ethical decisions should rest with patients, doctors, and professional medical organizations (e.g. licensing boards); not with any other party.
6) Minimize administrative costs.
7) Encourage programs and measures that improve lifetime health of customers/patients.
8) Encourage research and innovation.
9) Include a plan for transitioning from the current system to the new one.

What have I missed?

84.6 miles: My feminism

I suppose feminism is an actual philosophy; perhaps one that's evolved over time, but basically one that has a set philosophy or agenda. I haven't really looked it up. Rather, I've kind of developed the impression that almost every woman has her own idea of feminism now; the once fairly unified movement has diverged into a range of views that vary based on her individual experiences. In fact, I would like to retroactively include men in that statement, also.  So, with that disclaimer, I don't claim this to be true feminism or anything. I claim this to be my philosophy when it comes to women's rights and responsibilities, justice, equality, family, and all that jazz.

Primarily and fundamentally, my feminist viewpoint is that it (feminism, or being a feminist) is about CHOICE above all.  The freedom to make an individual choice about how your life will proceed.  It's a movement against fitting people into societal niches, particularly based on tradition and traditional gender roles.  I find that the movement as a whole would be pointless if we went from 'all women should stay at home and be mothers and homemakers' to 'all women should be working on careers.'  Furthermore, it is hypocritical for women to demand supposed 'equality' and yet continue to hold men to the same (or harsher) standard as before. It needs to be acknowledged that being viewed as the 'frailer' and 'more maternal' sex did and still does have certain perks. One of the most heartbreaking? The issue of father's rights.

Brief sidetrack: one of the few legitimate complaints I've heard from guys about feminism relates to the fact that the courts (and "the system") if you will, are still heavily skewed toward women when it comes to divorce, child custody, etc. Furthermore, the feminist view on abortion (pro-choice) tends to completely disregard the potential interest(s) of the father; the choice is considered to be entirely the mother's.  Basically, we stereotype men as money-earning (or on the flip side, shamefully deadbeat) machines that don't (or shouldn't) care the slightest about their kids (except, of course, as a drain on resources).  I admit, I know, in my generation, only three (unmarried or divorced) fathers. Only one is remotely close to this. The other two (at least when it comes to their kid(s)) are incredibly conscientious.  Some statistics support my experience: http://deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php .  (Incidentally, here's hoping my sample does not expand too much in the future, I don't really want any friends going through this...).  So my point is, a true feminist ought to see the injustice here and ought to be opposed to such practices.

In the abortion question, the question is a truly sensitive one...what if he (for whatever reason, i.e. personal, religious, moral) wants to keep the baby and she does not? And if we allow the man to have a call in this situation, how do we keep him from abusing that right to 'punish' the woman by forcing her through the pregnancy and then abandoning her and the child?  If the mother has the choice to abort the baby and give up the responsibilities it entails, why do we hold the father to fiscal responsibility for the child without giving him a choice? How is that fair?  Like I said, it is a delicate situation where many possible outcomes need to be foreseen.  I don't claim to have answers, but I know that the current system is not working, in the most unfortunate way.

So, back to the subject: true equality isn't about completely equal earnings and equal pay and equal everything. It's about equal CHOICES and opportunities. It's about being able to choose family or career or both no matter what sex you are. To make the right choice for your family based on your situation and not be harshly judged for it. That means removing the stigma from stay at home dads. That means taking turns paying for dates. That means not insisting that 'men' (because I am generalizing) be high earners or buy diamond rings or do whatever, but  finding the man (or woman) that best fits you and your lifestyle and the kind of partnership you want to have.

There are still men who want a homemaker wife. And for that matter, there are still women that want to be homemakers, who are prepared for 'mother' being their most important 'career.'  There is nothing wrong with that.  There may be couples who are both interested in working. Or where the woman is more career-oriented. I realize I am being hetero-centric here, and yes, I don't have to be. This all applies equally to gay and lesbian couples; but then, they already realize this, by necessity ;) .  I would even expand that idea of choice to say we shouldn't need to restrict marriage or family to one- or two-parent arrangements. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Moving on. It is my personal belief that the search for absolute 'equality' is doomed. Men and women, on a biological level, are not organized the same way.  However, I believe (I see, in my day-to-day life) the variance between people in terms of all character and physical traits--aptitude in mathematics or communication, athleticism and strength, stoicism, neatness, etc. all vary more between individuals than between sexes. Not to mention some of that variance is related to upbringing rather than genetics.  So again, we need to stray away from 'all men are this' and 'all women are that' thinking. Maybe we'll end up with 30% women in Mechanical Engineering...or 40% or 20%...or 60%!  Regardless, if all women feel free to choose any career and know they will be respected for their skill in it, a cultural victory will have been achieved. A victory of choice.

I should amend that. Women (and men) should be free to choose the lifestyle they want that meshes with their upbringing without judgement; this includes religious lifestyles that stress male dominance, as much as I personally think those are harmful to individuals and the society.  If this sounds contradictory...my view, again, promotes choice of lifestyle.  If someone is brought up a certain way with certain views (on morality, family, etc), then that may be the lifestyle they are comfortable and happy with, so I cannot convince myself that it is right for me to exclude that choice among others for them if their choices do not actively affect me.

That last was important: Forcing one's views on another, e.g. legislatively, or through violent, extremist, offensive actions, is not 'freedom of' anything.  It is impinging on freedom.  It is the opposite.  Taking away others' choices is the only invalid choice. 

I don't think that was a complete philosophy, but probably enough for today, because I need to go home eventually. I'd like to hear what others think of this and have my views challenged; it'll help me further refine them! :)

82.4 miles: Salad Hacks

About a month ago, I had a new food kick. This time, salads. I didn't like salads for a long time; it seemed to me they would be un-filling, making them takes forever, and buying them is more expensive than more satisfying foods (like sandwiches!)

Plus, there's the whole 'girl eating salad' thing. "Can I please just get iceberg lettuce and 3 shreds of carrot on the side, no dressing?" Basically, this: http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad. I wanted to avoid that. Even though I'd be the first to admit that's a stupid reason.

I think for me, the kick started with fruit salad. I do like my fruit, and I do like it mixed, but the little fruit cups are always sooo pricey. So when I was studying for quals, I made a giant tub of fruit and ate it all week (yes, it was fine in the fridge for 3-4 days; by my standards, anyway).  And I was really glad I did, because it was way better than the snacks I would probably have had otherwise.

Gradually, I ramped it up to real salads. Mostly because I wanted to get more greens in my diet (not iceberg lettuce), and the most attractive way of eating greens is salad.  And along the way I figured out some tricks that help me be happier about this salad thing:

1) Buy good greens. I like mixed greens. I hate washing greens so I get the pre-washed ones.
2) Many ingredients! I think any less than 5 and it tastes boring. There needs to be variety!
3) Add protein! I make extra fish or chicken specifically for this purpose. Otherwise, cheese or eggs work. Also, got a tub of sliced almonds and throw them on everything. :) If I'm feeling fancy, I add prosciutto.
4) Make it the night before.
5) Minimize the prep work. I clean my peppers all at once so I can just chop-chop-chop and be done. Today I was trying to cut peppers, onions, cucumbers all at once and save for the rest of the week. However, it worked out to just two salads, one of which was dinner, so I don't know how long those veggies will last pre-cut yet.
5b) Do NOT pre-cut tomatoes. Just buy the bitty ones (grape or cherry); they don't leak all over the salad.
6) Use peeler to cut carrots. It makes thin, delicious slices.
7) Use dressing. The 'bad for you' kind. It's delicious and saves you from the salad stigma.

I think that's all my wisdom for now. :)

77.8 miles: Thoughts on the future of education.

I'm taking an online class this semester for the first time.  I've had classes at IIT that had an online section, which was very convenient; I could catch up on lectures if I had to miss a class, instead of puzzling through someone's notes.  But to have the entire experience online is rather different.

On a related note, I happened across an article today on how 'online education' is being implemented in schools. It's not completely online, but it's definitely taking advantage of it. It's called the 'flipped' school day. The idea is simple: did you ever get 'stuck' watching a lecture at school as opposed to stuck on a homework problem? Did you ever wish you could 'rewind' the teacher and  hear that concept again before moving on, or pause it to jot down a long formula without missing the next bit? Basically did you ever wish the lecture was being done on your time? On the other hand, isn't it helpful to have someone knowledgeable around when you're actually solving problems or completing an assignment? So, the simple concept is, flip the two! Stop sending problems and assignments home; instead, send the lectures, in video form.

I see another upshot: you're saving the passive learning (lectures) for the less energetic part of the day, and active, experiential learning for the middle of the day. You're working with most people's natural energy peak. You're also saving your teachers' time...a lecture only needs to be recorded once (during prep time) for several sections of the same class. Perhaps even across years! And like the article says, you can even exchange lectures with other schools.

I am wondering a few things, however.  Are the improvements cited by the school really due to moving those lectures, or can they be abolished altogether? I'm thinking of this other article that I read recently. In a nutshell, some physics profs structure classes based on small group problem solving and discussion, rather then lectures; and they see better results. Granted, I think they assigned reading and expected it to be done, too.

I'm going to admit, I never read for my classes; if I do, I'm just getting the same information a second time in lecture, and I'm bored. I'd rather go back to the book and read if I don't understand something from lecture. However, this hinges on the fact that I don't need to read to go to class. If I did, I probably would.

So, back to my online class...it's really a middle ground. Usually, I 'attend class' when it's going on, which lets me ask questions and participate if I want. On the other hand, I always have the option of watching or re-watching later (including late at night when I wouldn't do other work). The software used also has lots of cool features (which of course we aren't using). Everyone 'attending' can call in and talk, or even call in with video. We can point to the 'board' and write on it. We have a chat function. Frankly, taping a classroom is not the best use of it!  I'm not sure what is.

Here's what I am sure of: we're way past lectures. Information is so easy to come by these days: you have Khan Academy, you have Wikipedia, you have Google. You have Instructables. You can learn whatever you want without ever leaving your screen...so what do we do with classtime? I refuse to succumb to the view that organized education is outdated; but in order to have value over a self-education, it must switch from imparting information to a different model. One centered around verifying the student received the information correctly (correcting misunderstandings and confusion), and teaching them to apply that information. Perhaps even to seek out more of it.

Since I plan to become an educator, this is a thought in progress. For today, I just wanted to point out a cool trend I was seeing.

77.8 miles: A Response

Read this on Natalia Antonova's blog (Z, you directed me there...): "There’s something weird about a system where everything is monetized."

It's a thought I've had before.

I grew up in a community (i.e. my family and my parents' friends), where we avoided exchanging money whenever possible. Sure if you broke something at someone else's house, you owned up and paid for it to be replaced. If you had an expensive dinner together, you would pay back whoever covered it or treat them to an equivalent meal later on (often this was on trips, so there were plenty of opportunities).  Hospitality ("rent") was only paid for during an extensive stay...and even then, an effort was usually made to pay in favors; in doing the grocery shopping, helping clean, cooking a nice dinner, etc.  Hospitality for a few days to a week was basically considered matter of fact.  Babysitting for each other was basically considered matter of fact (though reciprocated at a later date).  Basically, there was a huge and largely untracked 'trade' in favors; if it wasn't a big deal, you helped a person out, and no funds were exchanged.

This went threefold for family. The money was everyone's; it was not partitioned out to individuals as 'their own.'  We all pitched in to the chores to the best of our abilities (even if they were outside the 'norm') and all got what we needed (or really wanted): food, clothes, school supplies, etc. Notably, watching my sisters, or my friends', was not a job; it was a household responsibility.

I understand that some families have regular babysitting needs; that for some teenagers it is a real job, and not just a matter of keeping an eye on kids they know well. But what I do think is weird is paying your own kids, to watch younger siblings....and by extension, same goes for family friends. I think it's weird to pay a friend and fellow pet-owner to watch your dog for a few days when they'll be around/in town anyway. These are matter of fact things you do for your circle, if you can.

I guess the last thing I want to add is that these favors are not necessarily tit-for-tat. My personal philosophy is that it's hard to create that direct exchange, in part because we all have different talents and skills. It's more of a giant human compact thing: I watch your kids, and one day someone will watch mine. I'll give you a ride, and someone will make me dinner when I'm sick.

There's more to life than money and profits. Here's to the human element! :)

77.8 miles: Junk and Gourmet

So, I was contemplating a conversation with someone about music today, and realized that I have an interesting ability to appreciate junk as well as gourmet offerings in a number of areas.

An obvious one is food. I love a refined palette of flavors on my plate. Sushi, aioli, prosciutto, arugula...probably not at the same time, but good, tasteful ingredients thoughtfully combined make very tasty food. And yet on the flip side I have the occasional craving for a fast-food cheeseburger and fries, potato chips, gummy bears, pizza.  That isn't to say either (or both) of these categories are my whole diet. Most of what I eat falls in-between: a few sliced tomatoes with onions, salt, and sunflower oil, or mozzarella, basil, and olive oil. PB&J on whole wheat with natural PB (peanuts & salt) and redcurrant jelly. A colorful beef stir-fry with carrots, onions, bell peppers, and snow peas. A roast chicken to eat for a week. Greek yogurt with a little strawberry jam for flavor.  Everyday, affordable (mostly) ingredients combined in quick ways that still make tasteful food.  But when it comes to treats, I can take the high road and go for sushi or the low road and grab a greasy burger, and either will be delicious.

Same goes for movies. I can appreciate a deep, thoughtful, artistic film. And the next day I'll watch a mind-numbing teen chick flick. In music, I can appreciate a talented artist who writes good lyrics and puts them to an appropriate, creative tune. Or I can appreciate a catchy, redundant song that nevertheless has lots of feel-good quality to it.  I'll never call it good music, but it will probably end up on my workout playlist. Music is actually interesting because I'll feel a lot less appreciation for mediocre music...that's neither truly good nor catchy-bad. Then again, my tastes in music are mysterious and varied....

In books, I clearly like thoughtful, intricate, and/or original writing...recently, of course, Name of the Wind captured my imagination. Not a particularly original story in most senses, but beautifully crafted (it has its original moments...I like his concept of dragons).  George RR Martin, of course, cannot be beat for intricacy in Song of Ice and Fire. Most recently, I've been re-reading and continuing to read Earth's Children by Jean M. Auel.  While at times boring with multiple descriptions of the ice age setting, I know of no other author who writes about that time period, particularly with so much archeological accuracy.  This isn't limited to adult books: I find beauty in the classic Peter Pan, in the thoughtful but almost universally accessible Harry Potter.  I love Diana Wynne Jones for her artful characters and the bizzare circumstances she crafted to bring them together.  Yet at the same time, I've made it through Twilight (only the first and before it was popular, I was unimpressed), a number of Sarah Dessen books, The Princess Diaries, and many others. I'm not including Tamora Pierce, as her books are 'comfort food for my brain' and probably affected my ideology more than I'd care to admit. But in retrospect, many of the other books weren't particularly good in any way that usually matters.  But the plot, and the character's naive and simplistic problems...these things are like a catchy tune. They draw you in against your better judgement (or mine, anyway).  Granted, when I do get hooked on one of these books, I finish it in a matter of hours and feel good. Relaxed. Sastisfied that I found out what happened; most of the satisfaction of finishing a book in 1/4 the time! So maybe not such a waste of time after all.


So the point of all this? I think definitions of good or bad are very screwy in categories like the above.  They can simply be satisfying in different ways. And ultimately, it is prudent...no, convenient to live the middle ground and experience everything available.  You are not restricted by "OMG I can never eat that!" or "This is dumb!" but instead are able to find good things about every experience.  Now, I say convenient because as I read once, "You can like what you choose, but you can't choose what you like."* Some kinds of food, or music, or literature may grate on your nerves or make you fall asleep. I hate beans, squashes and eggplant. I fall asleep to most classical music. I can't stand movie sets that look marginally fake (Edward Scissorhands comes to mind) as opposed to very realistic or even obviously fake (e.g. Peter Pan, 2003).  I did not like reading Thomas Hardy, or Shakesperean tragedies, or any Russian classics I've tried.  I'm a huge supporter of "you can't choose what you like."

I guess that's my ultimate point: we don't choose what we like.  We have to make peace with our likes and dislikes, figure out and accept the value they are providing to us.  And of course, in spite of all my jesting to the contrary, no judging others based on these things, either!

Self-Motivation

Today, I found myself wondering whether there were really any self-motivated people out there.  It went kind of like this:

I wish I was self-motivated, but I'm not. I'm motivated by assignments and deadlines from my advisor, opinions of and pressure from my peers and friends, the expectations and hopes of my parents and family. When I drop the ball repeatedly, I feel like I am letting all or many of these people down.  Perhaps that strong sense of needing to live up to the expectations and to be well-thought of is internal, but ultimately without those external people, the motivation would be very low.

I suspect that my advisor, in turn, is motivated by pressures from her colleagues and bosses. She is probably motivated by expectations from her students, as well. If she's teaching a class, we expect her to come in prepared to lecture, to give us assignments and test our knowledge at the end. Slight variations are justifiable, but too far out of line and we will complain that we learned nothing. We also expect a certain degree of guidance and help in our research.  She is in meetings and on committees with other faculty that expect her contributions in other areas.

Similar chains of influence would continue up to the university president (or analogously, a company CEO, for example). These high ranking individuals, in turn, are probably driven largely by the needs and expectations of their subordinates on a day-to-day basis. I have little understanding of what kinds of activities occupy their days, but I surmise lots of meetings and correspondence are involved, and their presence as a figurehead and a decision-maker are required--again, much of the day-to-day motivation is external.

So, I guess I don't see where self-motivation occurs in the work setting. Or am I missing something?

After thinking through all that I turned to something else where motivation is apparent--hobbies.

Many people (myself included) have more of a tendency to start projects than to finish them. Perhaps, the ones that finish (more) projects are the more self-motivated? Perhaps it is the ability to carve out time for the one or two things that are truly interesting to you while tuning out the external influences that is a better definition of motivation? Still working on it, for myself.

New Year, New Resolution

This last year, I really learned to live by myself. I became comfortable with it. I know I said this a few months ago around my birthday and this was true...and it still is.  I've come a long way since last January and the preceding December (the two months before that, not so much progress).  And when I look back at my old resolutions, I think I've broken a lot of dependencies/addictions (flash games, TV shows via Hulu) and changed a major way of thinking (commit more resources to my health).  I could also argue that I was better at staying in touch with family and friends. My focus is...better than it was, though not perfect. More on that later.  Basically, I had a good year...

So good, I've had trouble coming up with good resolutions or a theme for this year. The old standbys...lose X pounds, do more work, etc. just don't cut it anymore. Those kinds of goals just don't work (and make me feel bad for not accomplishing them). 


Then, I looked at myself last night, and, in a flash, realized what my theme for this year needed to be. It's something I'm already doing, a little, but something I'd like to put more focus on. I'm going to call it "living for myself" (as a parallel to "living by myself").  What does this encompass? It means keeping my mind on my own goals, my own preferences and tastes, my own values and locking out unhelpful influences on these areas.

By this I mean, take 'productivity blogs' with a grain of salt (or maybe stop reading them altogether...though reading something I disagree with helps clarify my feelings and opinions, so I might continue reading them occasionally, anyway). Instead, analyze myself and my behaviors, then look for ways to improve them based on what I already know makes me feel good. Like, going to bed by 11 or midnight. Eating vegetables.  And yogurt. Having a social event to look forward to every week. Giving myself a complete day off from obligations every week. Keeping my house clean.  There's a million other little things that help me. And more importantly, there are a million little things that don't...like having a schedule I adhrere to, religiously. Getting up early.


I also want to lay out a career plan this year. This seems like something that could be done in a day or so, but really involves a lot of information gathering about my options after grad school.  I need to determine if research is something I want to strive to excel in, or if I can relax my expectations of myself in that department and work on advancing myself as an educator, which (based on my reading habits) seems to excite me a lot more. Basically, I need to set aside what 'people think' is the right thing to do with a PhD, and decide what I want to do with it.

I want to take charge of my education. I've been a rather passive student this past semester/year, which may partially explain why certain classes came across as boring to me.  But every class has places to branch out, look up other sources, etc.  Even outside of class, there are things I could be learning that would be helpful to my research and personally enriching to myself. This is one of those things that I enjoy a lot more than I expect to, so I really want to raise that expectation for myself so I do more of this kind of 'work'.


Finally, I want to find more fun activities that I enjoy and that give me a sense of accomplishment...sign up for athletic classes (yoga, ice skating), do more crafty things (finish some scarves), do more outdoorsy things (e.g. hiking), or blog more regularly about the small things that make me think, or wonder, or relate.


These are all just examples.  Just like a few years back I promised myself I'd make more healthy choices (and it worked!), my big resolve this year is to focus on developing me.  My personal identity that isn't influenced by the expectations and opinions of others, or (more realistically) is influenced much less strongly.


For the time being, I finally need to study for quals...

75.8 miles: Martyr complex

As I may have mentioned, the past year (roughly) has been a long-running experiment in creating a more balanced life. I've tried to get away from the 'academics above all' mindset that I have had since...middle school at the latest, and made an effort to include other things in my life, most notably physical activity and health in general, even when at times this comes at the expense of academic work. 

I can't say I've been terribly consistent with this mission, but it has been an overall direction I have tried to move in.   To that effect, I've spent some time thinking about how I work; what makes me feel good and what doesn't. What kind of complexes or 'тараканы в голове' I have.  A couple I knew in advance, like, that I do better when I feel I'm 'ahead' or doing well rather than when I feel like I am or I need to catch up.

Another, I've recognized recently is that I have a martyr complex.  One of the reasons I like to work late (after about 5 or 6 PM) is that I feel like I'm not expected to, so it's 'extra credit.' It's demonstrating my undying commitment to education and science!

Except that it really isn't. Because if I was really that committed, I'd work just as earnestly and have just as much motivation between 9 and 5 as I do outside these hours...

So, what to do? Is this complex something I should get rid of, or find a way to use?

I lean toward finding a way to use it. Along with my disposition for Nice Things (e.g. office supplies for HW, yoga pants, etc.), my discovery that for hardcore studying nothing beats EB's Bagels, that I like posting my miles-run total in my blog posts and watch it creep up, and I like getting gold stars for keeping up with my exercise plans :)

On another Life Balance Project topic: words I hate:

Productivity, networking, critical thinking, problem-solving, analysis (unless specifically defined in context), goal-setting, role-model, passion.