Well, it's finally Spring Break!! Some of my plans are related to my nerdy personality: like going to the library, studying, doing homework, reading math-related books for fun. Other of my plans are related to plain old fun: like going shopping for new shoes, painting my toenails, and enjoying the warm sunny weather.
I'm sure the time will go by fast, as every week does. And technically, I will not have a complete Spring Break (dum, dum, dum...Statics test in the middle of it at CSN). Yet, I intend to try to balance it out with fun and me-time to homework and studying.
On the bright side, I will not have to get up early this week. It will be nice to sleep in, if my body will let me. I've noticed that I typically wake up early because of having an early morning class two days out of the week on Tuesday and Thursday. So even on days when I do not have to wake up until later, I find myself awake at 7:30 am. I should probably feel grateful that my body is trained. Yet, late nights studying and early mornings can be trying on the brain.
I might even convince myself to clean my room. It looks rather intense and I kept meaning to clean it all semester. It was a mess last semester as well because it was half-painted and my dad was putting in shelves. I'm probably going to need some bookends and storage containers.
I've filled up one wall shelf, my desk, and two other ground bookshelves already. I have one wall shelf left to work with because the top of my dresser is full and my window sill is also full. Thus, I'm going to have my work cut out for me. Hence clear storage containers might be very helpful to the process. Perhaps, I might even convince myself to "throw stuff away", which might get a smile out of my dad.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Human Need To Control Everything, But It Might Not Be Possible
Like many other females, I find myself perplexed by the actions of men. Generally when I want to understand how men behave, I look to Google. I type in various questions to see what answers the Google search button will produce.
There are so many lists of how to figure out if a guy likes a girl. Having so many lists makes it seem like there is no single authority on the subject. Then, there are all these discussion boards where random people try to answer questions given a scenario. The answer creators vary in how credible the advice sounds. Some people are just crude. Others write as if they are foremost experts, which does not seem possible.
Sometimes I just want answers to everything. I do not want to have to appear weak by asking such questions and just have a magical device tell me the answers to my questions. Hence, I praise the inventor of the Magic 8 Ball. Perhaps I should just stop looking up answers on the internet and just ask a Magic 8 Ball because the reliability of the answer is probably about the same between the two. (Disclaimer: I have not conducted experiments to compare the two, so this is just an opinion.)
Are there really any answers? Or are answers just another abstraction like numbers and letters? Perhaps answers are proposed simply so humans will not go crazy for thinking there are no answers.
It's nice to think nature lives by specific laws and people behave the way they do based upon tried and true theories.
Accepting that life is soaked in randomness and that logic does not exist appears scary because it implies that nothing can be controlled. People want to believe they can control nature, natural resources, natural disaster damage, people, human brain chemistry, human purchasing choices, the stock market, and a whole lot of other things. As a result, people make theories up and do experiments to prove theories because the unknown and uncontrollable truths are scarier than temporary lies.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Pesky Interview Question About Strengths and Weaknesses
I have been insanely busy lately trying to keep up with the schoolwork. I find that once I start to think I might be finished with all of assignments I need to do, there is another one that pops up.
I was just thinking to myself for a little bit about the concept of weaknesses. I am under the impression that people in general do not want to admit they have any weaknesses. Everybody wants to give a good impression by nature. It leads me to the question: how can focusing on the negatives benefit an individual's attitude?
I find it fascinating that potential employers always ask the question, "What are your strengths and weaknesses?" It seems like a question that can set the interviewee up for failure. In hindsight or as an objective party listening to how somebody else answered that question, we might be able to say, "oh, you should have led with your strengths and only briefly mentioned your weaknesses." Yet, in the moment, how would any individual respond to that question to their own satisfaction?
Even when I try to come up with weaknesses now, I first think of qualities that are only mild weaknesses if weaknesses at all. As such, if put on the spot, I might say "honesty" or "analytical thinker". Honesty might be a weakness depending on what job you are vying for in the interview. If interviewing to be a car salesperson, honesty might be a bad quality to have because you have to start out selling at a high price and get negotiated down. An honest person might hear the sob story of a single mother with five kids and want to start the price lower or tell her about a different car lot with better deals. Yet, one has to consider their own livelihood. As such, it would be a moral dilemma everyday with an honest salesperson. As well, an analytical thinker might not be best for a mundane job. Sure, it works for Toyota, where it is encouraged for all employees to come up with improvements for the car assembly plants. In that setting, you can be an analytical thinker. However, maybe in other factory settings, it is a more "put your head down and focus on just your work all day" kind of atmosphere. Thus, analytical thinkers need not apply.
I wonder if it would be best to simply only give strengths in your answer. When asked about weaknesses, claim to not have any at all. I wonder if that is the sort of person employers want, a person with so much confidence that they do not see their weaknesses as weaknesses at all. Weaknesses are simply areas in life for which we can grow. God may not have put us on this earth as perfect, but we all have the potential to be our best possible selves.
In any case, weaknesses are normal and we all have them. Well, except fictional characters like Rambo. That character did not have weaknesses. He only spoke when he had something to say and showed his skills through action. I wonder how Rambo would answer a question like "what are your strengths and weaknesses?" It would not surprise me if he just stared into the eyes of the employer for a long time and said, "Hire me and I'll show you." It makes me wonder if that is a viable answer as well.
People are not like cars. Should we even have to admit to a stranger that we have weaknesses and report them (people faxes instead of car faxes)? Shouldn't employers be able to look at a resume and talk to references to assess this question instead of putting a potential employee on the spot? "Tell me where you're vulnerable, so I can assess who of these candidates is least vulnerable. Yet, any one of these candidates could have lied to me in the process and I would be none the wiser." Is this reasonable?
I was just thinking to myself for a little bit about the concept of weaknesses. I am under the impression that people in general do not want to admit they have any weaknesses. Everybody wants to give a good impression by nature. It leads me to the question: how can focusing on the negatives benefit an individual's attitude?
I find it fascinating that potential employers always ask the question, "What are your strengths and weaknesses?" It seems like a question that can set the interviewee up for failure. In hindsight or as an objective party listening to how somebody else answered that question, we might be able to say, "oh, you should have led with your strengths and only briefly mentioned your weaknesses." Yet, in the moment, how would any individual respond to that question to their own satisfaction?
Even when I try to come up with weaknesses now, I first think of qualities that are only mild weaknesses if weaknesses at all. As such, if put on the spot, I might say "honesty" or "analytical thinker". Honesty might be a weakness depending on what job you are vying for in the interview. If interviewing to be a car salesperson, honesty might be a bad quality to have because you have to start out selling at a high price and get negotiated down. An honest person might hear the sob story of a single mother with five kids and want to start the price lower or tell her about a different car lot with better deals. Yet, one has to consider their own livelihood. As such, it would be a moral dilemma everyday with an honest salesperson. As well, an analytical thinker might not be best for a mundane job. Sure, it works for Toyota, where it is encouraged for all employees to come up with improvements for the car assembly plants. In that setting, you can be an analytical thinker. However, maybe in other factory settings, it is a more "put your head down and focus on just your work all day" kind of atmosphere. Thus, analytical thinkers need not apply.
I wonder if it would be best to simply only give strengths in your answer. When asked about weaknesses, claim to not have any at all. I wonder if that is the sort of person employers want, a person with so much confidence that they do not see their weaknesses as weaknesses at all. Weaknesses are simply areas in life for which we can grow. God may not have put us on this earth as perfect, but we all have the potential to be our best possible selves.
In any case, weaknesses are normal and we all have them. Well, except fictional characters like Rambo. That character did not have weaknesses. He only spoke when he had something to say and showed his skills through action. I wonder how Rambo would answer a question like "what are your strengths and weaknesses?" It would not surprise me if he just stared into the eyes of the employer for a long time and said, "Hire me and I'll show you." It makes me wonder if that is a viable answer as well.
People are not like cars. Should we even have to admit to a stranger that we have weaknesses and report them (people faxes instead of car faxes)? Shouldn't employers be able to look at a resume and talk to references to assess this question instead of putting a potential employee on the spot? "Tell me where you're vulnerable, so I can assess who of these candidates is least vulnerable. Yet, any one of these candidates could have lied to me in the process and I would be none the wiser." Is this reasonable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)