When I first got interested in teaching, one of the reasons I wanted to do it is because a lot of people don't see how math is relevant to their lives, and I think that makes their lives a lot worse. People who can use math fluently can adapt to their surroundings better, can manipulate their environment, are less likely to get cheated by deals they don't understand, etc. I really think it not only makes your life better, but it makes your life better by a huge amount.
Now there's a lot of people who don't see how math is relevant, but they're still good at it. They probably won't ever credit math with their successes in life, but I honestly don't worry about them that much. They'll be able to figure things out when they need to. But there are a lot of people who really can't handle math related things. There are people who fundamentally don't understand credit cards and end up poor the rest of their life because of it. There are people who get suckered in to signing up for premium packages even though they utilize about a tenth of the resources. There are people who think they'll be in the top 10% of the nation, when they don't even have a chance, or understand what that means. In fact, most people think they're above average. People who aren't capable of sitting down and reasoning through their situations are at a severe disadvantage. If everything goes well in their life and difficult decisions never come up, then it's not such a big issue. It is feasible that you could get by without math in an ideal situation. However most people will be faced with difficult choices. Do I chose place X for $500 a month, or place Y for $700 a month? Each of those choices has many repercussions on the rest of your life. Do I get a car loan, or do I take the bus? A friend of my mom's bought an SUV a few years ago. She liked the idea of being able to spontaneously go into the mountains. Not my kind of thing really, since I'm so indoorsy, but I can see that being a nice thing to have. So we know the benefits. What are the costs? And how do you best compare them to weigh your options? Do you compare the money spent on renting a car vs paying off one you own? How about factoring in flexibility (you have to pay for the car you own- you don't have to rent a car if you can't afford it)? And how do you account for environmental concerns? And even if those aren't important to you, what about other lasting factors? How will your credit score be affected if you're pushing yourself to pay for a car? What if you, like my mom's friend, pay only the minimum balance on the car every month? My mom's friend didn't even realize she had bad credit until she applied for a loan to buy a house. That must have hurt to find out that paying the minimum balance every month was making it harder and harder to own a home. She thought she was paying what she owed and so should have great credit. She didn't realize that she was never touching the principle and that when applying to get a loan, it appeared that she already had a large debt.
Are all of these concerns math related? Not directly. Some of it is just misinformation leading to misfortune. But what caused that level of misinformation? When you sign a contract for a credit card, all the rules are spread out and described. Of course, if you can't understand percentages or compound interest, it might not mean much to you. If your grasp over mathematics is so poor that you can't understand contracts that you sign yourself into, then maybe you'll have trouble figuring out how to work within the system. Maybe you'll have a harder time calculating the costs and benefits of something you wish to purchase. Maybe you won't save up the money you need for retirement and will have to keep working until eventually your company fires your for being unfit to work and you've destroyed your health just trying to make ends meet. Most people do not have enough money for retirement. Would it have been any different if they had sat down and calculated their earnings at an earlier stage of life? Would they have still decided to buy the fancier car or the larger house or get the hundreds of DVDs for their collection? Why do people buy things that they cannot afford? Is it because they don't see the consequences? Or is it because they don't understand them? It is a difficult mathematical calculation to even decide what it is that you can and cannot afford. It takes further understanding to realize what the repercussions are for going over the limit, or even for not going positive enough. I want to help people use math so their lives are better. Even if people don't see these as mathematical calculations, if someone is good at math, they'll be able to figure things out on their own. It grants them a certain independence and makes me confident that they'll go on to do fine. It's the students who struggle with even simple computations who worry me. What decisions will they make when the stakes are higher? Where instead of getting grades, they get debt? I worry for them a lot. And that why I want to teach. I figure that's the best way to help these people and the best way to target ignorance.
However certain signs indicate to me that that might not be the path I take when teaching. Several people in my program have commented to me that I would really excel at teaching the higher level calculus classes, especially when I comment about having difficulties with my lower achieving class. I keep thinking to myself, "But those kids are fine! They'll get by just fine without me. They'll go to college and make some realizations and maybe they'll get burned at times, but they'll learn from it and figure out a way to come back." It's the other kids who I worry might not bounce back so easily. I want to help them so that they won't be at such a disadvantage. But I don't know sometimes. Was I really a help to my last class? I don't really think so. It's true that I don't know where they would have been without me, but I have to say I wasn't happy with where they ended up. Most of them quit trying, or were unhappy about trying when everyone else just copied from them. I didn't get across any of the idea that were really important to me, some of the ideas that took several paragraphs up above. But I've been thinking about it recently- those ideas aren't simple. It's true that the struggling students don't understand a lot of what I just wrote about, but I'm not so sure the advanced students do either. None of them have credit cards- why should they understand credit debt? But they might be in a better position to understand some of those things. I just assumed that they'd figure it out as they went though life, but who's to say that they would? I know a lot of bright people who got turned off to math and then never touched it again. Will I be able to do more good helping remedial kids (against nearly overwhelming odds, I might add), or helping the already gifted who have a better chance of actually showing some improvement because of me? Is this a case of helping the wealthy (in knowledge) get wealthier? Will I really enact any change this way? I would like to help the most needy, but of course, those are the hardest to help. I don't know what to do.
Truthfully, I'm just going to have to try different things and see what feels most rewarding to me. It's not like I have to choose one or the other. I think I can try both, even at the same time. It's just hard for me to consider changing my original reason for getting into teaching, to shift my target group from the students of early math to the students who have already mastered (or gotten past at least) the basics. It's a tough decision and even after writing for a while, I don't feel like I have any answers.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Indoor Skydiving
Doesn't sound like a good idea, does it? Well it is! It's also not quite what it sounds like. It approximates skydiving in that it's quite windy, but it doesn't really involve the sky at all. Or diving for that matter. Really it's all false advertisement except for the indoor part.
To put it simply, there's an enormous fan blowing air straight up into a small wind tunnel. The force of the wind is actually enough to suspend you in the air. It's supposed to feel pretty similar to skydiving. I wouldn't know since I've never skydived, but I can say that indoor skydiving is a blast! I went last weekend and it was really fun. It was very short and very pricey ($55 for 2 minutes!), but Steven and I had been wanting to try it for a while, and in a bad economy like this one, I fear things like indoor skydiving might have some difficulty surviving. Silly me though. The place was packed! And the receptionists were on the phone constantly taking reservations for future appointments. Crazy.
So we shelled out the bucks and got to fly around in the wind tunnel for a little while. There was an instructor with us and once we started getting the hang of the tunnel, he started spinning us around in the air. It was pretty cool. One word of caution though: the wind blows so hard that it was a little hard for me to breathe through my nose. What option did that leave? Breathing through my mouth, which of course meant keeping my mouth open. Which, as it turns out, meant getting my saliva blown onto my face where it pretty much instantly dried. Not a problem if you have nice breath. But let's just say my experience inspired me to eat some mints.
It was a lot of money for a short time, but I have to say I'm tempted to go back. The second time is cheaper and you're able to control your own movements more (instead of having the instructor position you). If you get good enough, you eventually move up to the really high speed winds and can do barrel rolls and other really crazy flips. I think the second visit is $40 and it gets even cheaper from there, but that's still a lot, especially considering how little time you're actually in there.
Perhaps one day I'll go back, but for now I'll just call it another interesting experience under my belt and move on. I do have one extra special memory from it though: after we were done, Steven told me that I looked so cute in the wind tunnel with my little wind blown smile (getting spit on my face and not really caring) that he fell in love with me all over again. He's a real romantic that one. I told him as much, and he just said that he says what he's feeling. And that's why he's such a romantic. He's the best.
To put it simply, there's an enormous fan blowing air straight up into a small wind tunnel. The force of the wind is actually enough to suspend you in the air. It's supposed to feel pretty similar to skydiving. I wouldn't know since I've never skydived, but I can say that indoor skydiving is a blast! I went last weekend and it was really fun. It was very short and very pricey ($55 for 2 minutes!), but Steven and I had been wanting to try it for a while, and in a bad economy like this one, I fear things like indoor skydiving might have some difficulty surviving. Silly me though. The place was packed! And the receptionists were on the phone constantly taking reservations for future appointments. Crazy.
So we shelled out the bucks and got to fly around in the wind tunnel for a little while. There was an instructor with us and once we started getting the hang of the tunnel, he started spinning us around in the air. It was pretty cool. One word of caution though: the wind blows so hard that it was a little hard for me to breathe through my nose. What option did that leave? Breathing through my mouth, which of course meant keeping my mouth open. Which, as it turns out, meant getting my saliva blown onto my face where it pretty much instantly dried. Not a problem if you have nice breath. But let's just say my experience inspired me to eat some mints.
It was a lot of money for a short time, but I have to say I'm tempted to go back. The second time is cheaper and you're able to control your own movements more (instead of having the instructor position you). If you get good enough, you eventually move up to the really high speed winds and can do barrel rolls and other really crazy flips. I think the second visit is $40 and it gets even cheaper from there, but that's still a lot, especially considering how little time you're actually in there.
Perhaps one day I'll go back, but for now I'll just call it another interesting experience under my belt and move on. I do have one extra special memory from it though: after we were done, Steven told me that I looked so cute in the wind tunnel with my little wind blown smile (getting spit on my face and not really caring) that he fell in love with me all over again. He's a real romantic that one. I told him as much, and he just said that he says what he's feeling. And that's why he's such a romantic. He's the best.
Monday, June 30, 2008
I hate driving
Seriously, how can people think it's fun? I know some people who think driving is relaxing and enjoyable. They like to go for a drive as if it were relaxing or something. I drive because I have to. It's something that's gotta be done. I have to get where I want to go and sometimes the only way to do that is via car. But I certainly don't think it's something fun to do and I would never do it unless I had to get somewhere.
Whenever I see someone who likes to drive, I think to myself, "Do you also like to sit still for long periods of time? And while you're sitting still you have to be paying constant attention? Oh and don't forget that you have about a million rules to be keeping in mind at once. And of course, if you fail to adhere to those rules and if you fail to pay attention and focus properly, you could die." I see driving as the most physical control that I have to have over my body at any point during the day. And if I don't have total control, there could be terrible consequences. If I even do something as minor as turning my steering wheel 15 degrees to the left while on the freeway, I'm likely to die. Even if I do nothing, I'm likely to die. All the road has to do is turn a little without me turning with it and I will crash into the median or, even worse, another car. How can you relax when there's always something to do? And not doing that something could be the last thing you don't do.
But that's not even the worst of it. You could be perfectly aware and alert, obeying the rules of the road, not fidgeting even when you really want to, and it still wouldn't be enough. One careless driver in the lane next to you is all it takes for you to die. Sure they'll be at fault, but that won't matter to you much when you're dead. So not only do you have to perfect, you have to trust every other person on the road to also be perfect, and honestly, I don't trust random people that much, especially not with my life.
I never particularly liked driving, but I didn't dislike it this much before my accident. I wonder how many people who enjoy driving have been in a huge car accident. My guess is very few. Most people don't realize the seriousness of driving. I certainly didn't. You don't really understand the forces at work until you feel them on your body. There's something incredibly sickening about feeling your body go from 65 mph to 0 in an instant. Imagine running as fast as you can and then tripping. Imagine how much it sucks to face plant right in the dirt. You probably weren't running more than 10 mph. And you didn't drop to 0 immediately. You probably skidded a bit. It might rip up your skin, but you wouldn't really feel it in your gut. When you're in a car and you stop suddenly (no skidding, no nothing), you still have momentum. Even if the car has a good safety rating and airbags deploy to keep you in one place, there's still a massive amount of force pushing you forward. I felt my insides surging forward because my body couldn't.
There's no real way to describe that feeling of incredible force working on your body. You don't feel it when you're driving regularly. It feels like you might as well be sitting at a table at home. The only difference is that the scenery outside your window is changing. But that force is there. It's an amazing marvel that we can harness such forces. By burning a little gasoline, we can propel our bodies through space at an alarming rate. And perhaps even more marvelous, this feat is commonplace, so commonplace that people don't think twice about it. To be honest, people usually don't think once about it.
And that's why I hate driving. Yes, it's necessary, and yes, I'll continue to do it when I have to, but I'm never going to stop hating it. And I'm never going to stop being scared when I have to do it. Just yesterday the thought occurred to me, "I'm not going to get over this, am I?" I figured it would fade and I'd become complacent once again. I wished that I would. But I can see that I'm not going to. That's something I just have to accept. There are people all over the world who must live with their fears. And, at least when I'm driving, I am one of them.
Whenever I see someone who likes to drive, I think to myself, "Do you also like to sit still for long periods of time? And while you're sitting still you have to be paying constant attention? Oh and don't forget that you have about a million rules to be keeping in mind at once. And of course, if you fail to adhere to those rules and if you fail to pay attention and focus properly, you could die." I see driving as the most physical control that I have to have over my body at any point during the day. And if I don't have total control, there could be terrible consequences. If I even do something as minor as turning my steering wheel 15 degrees to the left while on the freeway, I'm likely to die. Even if I do nothing, I'm likely to die. All the road has to do is turn a little without me turning with it and I will crash into the median or, even worse, another car. How can you relax when there's always something to do? And not doing that something could be the last thing you don't do.
But that's not even the worst of it. You could be perfectly aware and alert, obeying the rules of the road, not fidgeting even when you really want to, and it still wouldn't be enough. One careless driver in the lane next to you is all it takes for you to die. Sure they'll be at fault, but that won't matter to you much when you're dead. So not only do you have to perfect, you have to trust every other person on the road to also be perfect, and honestly, I don't trust random people that much, especially not with my life.
I never particularly liked driving, but I didn't dislike it this much before my accident. I wonder how many people who enjoy driving have been in a huge car accident. My guess is very few. Most people don't realize the seriousness of driving. I certainly didn't. You don't really understand the forces at work until you feel them on your body. There's something incredibly sickening about feeling your body go from 65 mph to 0 in an instant. Imagine running as fast as you can and then tripping. Imagine how much it sucks to face plant right in the dirt. You probably weren't running more than 10 mph. And you didn't drop to 0 immediately. You probably skidded a bit. It might rip up your skin, but you wouldn't really feel it in your gut. When you're in a car and you stop suddenly (no skidding, no nothing), you still have momentum. Even if the car has a good safety rating and airbags deploy to keep you in one place, there's still a massive amount of force pushing you forward. I felt my insides surging forward because my body couldn't.
There's no real way to describe that feeling of incredible force working on your body. You don't feel it when you're driving regularly. It feels like you might as well be sitting at a table at home. The only difference is that the scenery outside your window is changing. But that force is there. It's an amazing marvel that we can harness such forces. By burning a little gasoline, we can propel our bodies through space at an alarming rate. And perhaps even more marvelous, this feat is commonplace, so commonplace that people don't think twice about it. To be honest, people usually don't think once about it.
And that's why I hate driving. Yes, it's necessary, and yes, I'll continue to do it when I have to, but I'm never going to stop hating it. And I'm never going to stop being scared when I have to do it. Just yesterday the thought occurred to me, "I'm not going to get over this, am I?" I figured it would fade and I'd become complacent once again. I wished that I would. But I can see that I'm not going to. That's something I just have to accept. There are people all over the world who must live with their fears. And, at least when I'm driving, I am one of them.
Friday, June 20, 2008
More cutesy, nerdy stuff involving Steven
So I said something (I forget what) and Steven replied:
Steven: I was just thinking that!
Me: Yeah we think alike a lot. It's uncanny. Like the X-Men.
Steven: Actually, I think it's incredible.
Me: Like the Hulk.
Steven: Also fantastic.
Me: Like the four.
Teehee!
Steven: I was just thinking that!
Me: Yeah we think alike a lot. It's uncanny. Like the X-Men.
Steven: Actually, I think it's incredible.
Me: Like the Hulk.
Steven: Also fantastic.
Me: Like the four.
Teehee!
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Butting heads
I am a scrappy little thing. Well, sometimes I am. For whatever reason, I can't seem to help myself when I'm around Sabira. I get extra aggressive and mean. Actually, I think I might know the reason. Sabira is workshift manager now and she has a very particular way of doing things and her very particular way is very different from my own. During summer, she decided that she was not going to pro rate weeks. In other words, even if someone was only here for one day during the week, they would still owe hours as if they were there for the whole week, so they would owe all three hours. It's pretty unlikely that they'd even be able to do three hours in one day like that. It means people going out of town would be guaranteed to go down hours. Sabira claimed that she wasn't willing to pro rate weeks because it was too much work, but I know that it's not that hard. In fact, it's really easy. You go to a specific page and turn the 3 into a 0, 1, or 2. It's as simple as that and takes about a minute from the time you read the email to the time the change is made. I thought her policy was absolute bull shit and had no idea why she was being such a ridiculous hardass, but I didn't want to be mean and bring a motion to overturn her or tread on her toes. But I still thought it was a ridiculous policy and wanted her to change it. I thought the best policy would be to just talk to her in person and see if I could reason her out of it, especially since her reasons for doing it didn't make sense. I was sitting with her and said I wanted to talk to her about workshift. I said, "So about pro rating..." and she immediately cut me off with a no before I had even finished the sentence. Ok. I think you're a bitch, but I'm going to plow on. "I know it's your policy not to pro rate, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense. I mean, if someone's here for just one day, they're not going to be able to do three hours. It's like going out of town for less than a week means that you're guaranteed to go down hours." She said no one else had approached her and said it was a problem, so she didn't think it was. I said that I knew of at least one other person (since he said at the first meeting, "wait why are you doing that?" when she first mentioned her policy), and there were probably others as well. She said she'd think about it. A short while later, she came up to my room and suggested a policy of owing one hour for every day a person was there. So if someone was here for three days, it would be the same as if they were there for 7. I said I thought that was fair and that it was pretty much exactly the same policy I had when I was workshift manager, so I certainly wasn't going to have any problems with it. I could tell as soon as I said it that that was a bad thing to say because she immediately told me that mine was a lot different because people owed one hour a day up to five hours with my plan, so being here 5 days was the same as being around all 7. She really wanted to do something different and saying she was similar to me was a mistake for her ego. Whatever. I agreed limply (thinking to myself that she was being ridiculous) because I just wanted her to go through with it. Then it could have been her idea and I wouldn't have been usurping her power by suggesting it at a meeting. She said she'd think about it and she left.
I was really hoping for more than an "I'll think about it." Honestly, this was going to happen whether she wanted it or not and I wanted to know if I should bring a motion. I don't think my mind was set on bringing the motion before I spoke with her though. I mean, her proposal that I said was fine would have meant that I never would have gotten my hours reduced (I'll probably be in Stebbins four days a week for most of the summer), but that was actually the proposal I was going to suggest to her. I was thrilled when she proposed it because I knew she'd be much more likely to accept it if she came up with it herself. I didn't really care about getting my hours reduced. I just thought she was being too much of a hardass. Then after speaking with her (and becoming subsequently annoyed), I wanted it to happen more. I could see that she realized it was at least a little reasonable and thought she could be convinced, so I wanted to run with it.
Then I saw Sabira post the new policy on the workshift board with a note saying it would be discussed at the next meeting. This made me pretty hopeful. It would be discussed and the house would be overwhelmingly in favor of it (since the current plan was ridiculous) and I wouldn't feel bad about overthrowing her power, and Sabira wouldn't lose any face if it passed because she'd be the one bringing up the discussion and she'd look better by starting out strict and then easing up a little. Because honestly, owing hours for the whole week when you're here only 3 days is pretty strict, but the house would have accepted it (giving it legitimacy and ensuring it was never challenged again) if she had presented it as a more lenient and flexible policy. Their reference points were in this very strict place and they wouldn't have questioned a less strict place even if it was still unfair, especially the new people.
So as long as Sabira started a discussion at the house meeting and proposed her new idea, everyone would have been happy. Unfortunately, she did not. She brought it up and said that someone had mentioned it to her and if anyone else felt the same, they should email her. And that was it. That was her discussion. She started moving on, and I had to interrupt her. I asked why we couldn't just discuss it now with everyone here. Sigh. The usurping had begun. I didn't want to, but that was sketchy. She knew people wouldn't remember to email her. Maybe one or two people would. And she would have told them they'd discuss it at the next meeting probably, unless the response was huge, which it would not have been. No one's going to remember a glossed over point that was rushed through followed by 45 minutes of talking about other stuff. It was pretty clear she didn't want other people's opinions. I don't really blame her. It's the workshift manager's job to try to get more hours for the house and I think she knew the house wouldn't go along with her original plan if they thought they had a choice. Her best bet was to make it harder for people to give input and then claim that it must not have been important to the house so she shouldn't act. That is certainly frustrating and I couldn't let it go. I felt a little like a jerk for having to be the one to propose the discussion. That meant it was going to be a battle between Sabira and the house instead of a discussion (and a battle that she would lose at that), but I think Jesse would have spoken up if I hadn't. I think that since as soon as Sabira said "Sure" uncertainly to my proposal of a discussion, Jesse agreed and proposed everyone owing a half hour for every day they were here. Ouch. It sure hurt her cause that she wasn't able to propose her stricter policy first. Sabira tried to recover by saying she wasn't willing to do that (she gets points for being being extra adamant) and then proposed "her" idea of an hour a day, but I think people's reference points had changed. Though I think Jesse was going to propose his idea whether she went first or not, and people would have gone along with that over her proposal. She was probably doomed from the start. If she had gone with the flow instead of fighting against it, she might have been able to change its course a little, but that's not the position she wanted to take.
So Sabira was strongly against Jesse's idea of a half hour a day and gave some pretty pathetic reasons for why that was the case. She said that there were very few half hour or hour and a half shifts over the summer so people would be left with an extra half hour. I couldn't let a ridiculous argument like that slide. It made no sense. I said so what if someone ends the semester up a half hour? If they're down a half hour, they can just do an hour and be up a little. It's not a big deal. She said, but we're not talking about the end of the semester - this would be every week! Ummm... I'll admit that I don't respect Sabira all that much, but now I have to add stupid to the list of adjectives. Ok maybe that's a little harsh, but her argument didn't make any sense. In fact, her whole understanding of the workshift system seemed kind of flawed. Though admittedly, she hasn't been using it for that long so it makes sense she's not that familiar with it. I didn't really get a chance to retort (probably for the best since I'm not sure I could have been nice about it) because Jesse said that they could just do a half hour a day rounded up to the nearest hour. The house became very confused by this statement and we spent the next few minutes clearing it up (omg I hate people). So one hour for one or two days; 2 hours for 3 or 4 days; and 3 hours for 5 or more days. Sabira stated again that she was not willing to do that and she absolutely would not. I got a little frustrated by this dictatorial attitude. It's not really her choice. It's the house's decision. It's like her saying she's not willing to do her job or listen to her constituents. I said it was the house's decision and she said we'd need a 3/4 vote to overturn any of the workshift manager's decisions. Sigh. This was one of the things I was afraid of with Sabira in a manager position. She's kind of a power hog who wants to push her weight around and sound tough. She wants things to be her decision because she knows best. She's one of those "I know best" personalities that are frustrating to deal with in your peers, but horrific to deal with in a superior or person in any position of power. As a workshift manager, I never threatened people with that 3/4 rule. I think anyone who does doesn't really deserve to be a manager. You should listen to what the house wants. They elected you. You're not there to boss them around or be mean to them. You're there to make sure the house runs smoothly. You stop people from making decisions that would benefit them at the expense of the whole house. You keep people's information up to date and try to get things running smoothly. You are the servant of the house, not it's boss. That's what it means to be a manager. Sabira didn't get that. She wanted to be the house's boss and tell us what she was willing to let us decide. At this point I was feeling less bad about usurping her and didn't feel at all guilty about bursting her bubble. She clearly had not read the bylaws because the workshift manager can be overturned by a simple majority vote in almost all situations. Here's a passage from our bylaws:
A workshift manager's allocation of hours to a particular workshift may only be overturned by a 3/4 vote by the house. This provision only applies to a workshift manager's determination of how many hours a workshift shall be worth. In the case of a dispute with a member over how long a workshift actually took to complete, or other such issues, the house shall retain its power to overturn the workshift manager's actions by majority vote.
So if Sabira says a shift is worth 1 hour and someone else says it should be worth 4, it would take 3/4 of the house to overturn her. In this situation, that was not the case. It's one thing to throw your weight around. It's quite another thing to throw your weight around when you don't have the authority to back it up. I will never understand why people will quote the bylaws without actually having read them. They're not that long really. And the parts that pertain to your specific job are definitely not that long. It's easy to gloss over room bids and things like that. And when people misquote the bylaws, they look extra stupid. I think it's that quoting the bylaws is an extremely persuasive argument (you can't really argue with that and it gives you a lot of authority), but the idea of reading 14 pages of "the managers shall do this" and "it is the responsibility of the workshift manager to do that" can be daunting to people. So they don't bother to actually read it, but when they start to feel cornered, they start to quote it and hope their bull shit can slide. And maybe Sabira didn't even realize that it was bull shit. She had heard that 3/4 rule before. It is easily the most misquoted rule in all the bylaws. A lot of people think it applies to every decision the workshift manager makes instead of the extremely limited situations it actually applies to. And this is another reason that it's bad to mention the 3/4 rule - you are way too likely to get overturn and look like an ass.
So to make a long story less long, when we voted on Jesse's revised proposal, Sabira was the only one to vote against it (though there were a handful of abstentions). In fact, I think 3/4 of the house might have actually overturned her, not that it matter. Then a lengthy discussion of whether or not to apply it retroactively came up and was narrowly voted down. I spearheaded that discussion. I wanted my old hours back since this was the policy now. I'm tired of being down hours when I shouldn't be. I probably made a lifelong enemy of Sabira by fighting for that. Whatever. As long as I mind my p's and q's, there's nothing she can do about it. And that's not really the way her mind works anyway. Anyway, I had already tread on her toes by fighting for the new policy and contradicting her when she said the extra amount of work it would create for her would be unreasonable. And then contradicting her again by clarifying the 3/4 rule. So I might as well go for broke and push even harder.
With Jesse's policy, I'm only going to owe 2 hours a week for most of the summer (summer school is only 4 days a week for me and this policy convinces me that it's not worth it to come back Sunday night). This is better than I expected, so I'm pretty happy about the situation. And honestly, there's nothing Sabira can do about it. There have been some cases in the past when someone was frequently not in the house and wanted to know if they could owe less than 5 hours a week. I think I would have been ok with it, but that's against the USCA bylaws, so I had to say no. If I only owe 2 hours all summer long and she argues with me about it, I have the leverage to overturn her. Because in summer, the minimum number of hours someone can owe weekly is not 3; it's 2. Stebbins is actually more strict with its hour requirements over summer. And if the house knew that, they might overturn that as well. And Sabira does not want that. Not that I think she's really going to give me trouble. I'm just prepared if she does.
I was wondering a little why I'm so mean to Sabira, but after writing this, I think I've changed my mind. She's a power hungry idiot. She strikes me as one of those people who was really awkward as a kid and didn't really have any friends. She could have been one of those kids that everyone picked on. When I look at her, I see someone who doesn't really get it. She could have easily changed the course of that conversation. She could have set the tone. It didn't even need to be a discussion. If she had just proposed a vote over her policy, it's possible that no one would have spoken up (I wouldn't have) with another policy before the vote was over. And then if someone spoke up, she could just say, well we just voted, so I think the house is ok with this. Then she could have said "let's talk after the meeting" or something else to defer discussion and it would have all gone away. I know Jesse wouldn't have followed through and talked with her after the meeting. He even said partway through the discussion "I don't know why I'm even fighting for this. I'm here all the time. It doesn't apply to me." He just thought her original policy was unfair. If she had addressed his concerns herself by offering a counter proposal (even the slightly unfair one of one hour per day), it probably wouldn't have been worth his effort to suggest the half hour a day rate. And if she had been less adamant against it and had not fought kicking and screaming, she might have been able to convince people by sounding rational and offering legitimate reasons why she thought the one hour a day rule made sense. She wants power (she's run for manager positions so many times - she says she needs the money, but it's so much easier to just get a part time job), but she doesn't know how to use it effectively. And now that she's been overturned once, it makes it that much easier for her to be overturned again. And chances are, she won't be able to reverse the pattern since she doesn't really know what she's doing. She could have gotten her way if she just knew how to handle people and meet them half way. Jesse's compromise of rounding up to the nearest hour is not what she wanted at all. Of course everyone else in the room felt like the people on opposite sides had met halfway just because neither one's original proposal was accepted. The made the rounding up policy all the more attractive because it looked like a moderate position. The truth is, it doesn't make much of a difference. Jesse's policy wasn't changed very much. It was still totally unacceptable to Sabira. Well tough shit. I'd feel bad about arguing with her and overturning her, but she was a fool to take such a hard-and-fast position on something she was guaranteed to lose. She tried to avoid the confrontation (asking people to email her) and tried to force the house into submission (bringing up the misquotation of the 3/4 rule), but that's not how you get your way. And if that's the way you think, you probably shouldn't get your way. I think she knew the house didn't like her policy, but she wanted to have it anyway. Oh well. You can't force your views on someone else just because you manage their workshifts. Maybe she'll realize that and maybe she won't. At least she's only workshift manager for the summer.
I was really hoping for more than an "I'll think about it." Honestly, this was going to happen whether she wanted it or not and I wanted to know if I should bring a motion. I don't think my mind was set on bringing the motion before I spoke with her though. I mean, her proposal that I said was fine would have meant that I never would have gotten my hours reduced (I'll probably be in Stebbins four days a week for most of the summer), but that was actually the proposal I was going to suggest to her. I was thrilled when she proposed it because I knew she'd be much more likely to accept it if she came up with it herself. I didn't really care about getting my hours reduced. I just thought she was being too much of a hardass. Then after speaking with her (and becoming subsequently annoyed), I wanted it to happen more. I could see that she realized it was at least a little reasonable and thought she could be convinced, so I wanted to run with it.
Then I saw Sabira post the new policy on the workshift board with a note saying it would be discussed at the next meeting. This made me pretty hopeful. It would be discussed and the house would be overwhelmingly in favor of it (since the current plan was ridiculous) and I wouldn't feel bad about overthrowing her power, and Sabira wouldn't lose any face if it passed because she'd be the one bringing up the discussion and she'd look better by starting out strict and then easing up a little. Because honestly, owing hours for the whole week when you're here only 3 days is pretty strict, but the house would have accepted it (giving it legitimacy and ensuring it was never challenged again) if she had presented it as a more lenient and flexible policy. Their reference points were in this very strict place and they wouldn't have questioned a less strict place even if it was still unfair, especially the new people.
So as long as Sabira started a discussion at the house meeting and proposed her new idea, everyone would have been happy. Unfortunately, she did not. She brought it up and said that someone had mentioned it to her and if anyone else felt the same, they should email her. And that was it. That was her discussion. She started moving on, and I had to interrupt her. I asked why we couldn't just discuss it now with everyone here. Sigh. The usurping had begun. I didn't want to, but that was sketchy. She knew people wouldn't remember to email her. Maybe one or two people would. And she would have told them they'd discuss it at the next meeting probably, unless the response was huge, which it would not have been. No one's going to remember a glossed over point that was rushed through followed by 45 minutes of talking about other stuff. It was pretty clear she didn't want other people's opinions. I don't really blame her. It's the workshift manager's job to try to get more hours for the house and I think she knew the house wouldn't go along with her original plan if they thought they had a choice. Her best bet was to make it harder for people to give input and then claim that it must not have been important to the house so she shouldn't act. That is certainly frustrating and I couldn't let it go. I felt a little like a jerk for having to be the one to propose the discussion. That meant it was going to be a battle between Sabira and the house instead of a discussion (and a battle that she would lose at that), but I think Jesse would have spoken up if I hadn't. I think that since as soon as Sabira said "Sure" uncertainly to my proposal of a discussion, Jesse agreed and proposed everyone owing a half hour for every day they were here. Ouch. It sure hurt her cause that she wasn't able to propose her stricter policy first. Sabira tried to recover by saying she wasn't willing to do that (she gets points for being being extra adamant) and then proposed "her" idea of an hour a day, but I think people's reference points had changed. Though I think Jesse was going to propose his idea whether she went first or not, and people would have gone along with that over her proposal. She was probably doomed from the start. If she had gone with the flow instead of fighting against it, she might have been able to change its course a little, but that's not the position she wanted to take.
So Sabira was strongly against Jesse's idea of a half hour a day and gave some pretty pathetic reasons for why that was the case. She said that there were very few half hour or hour and a half shifts over the summer so people would be left with an extra half hour. I couldn't let a ridiculous argument like that slide. It made no sense. I said so what if someone ends the semester up a half hour? If they're down a half hour, they can just do an hour and be up a little. It's not a big deal. She said, but we're not talking about the end of the semester - this would be every week! Ummm... I'll admit that I don't respect Sabira all that much, but now I have to add stupid to the list of adjectives. Ok maybe that's a little harsh, but her argument didn't make any sense. In fact, her whole understanding of the workshift system seemed kind of flawed. Though admittedly, she hasn't been using it for that long so it makes sense she's not that familiar with it. I didn't really get a chance to retort (probably for the best since I'm not sure I could have been nice about it) because Jesse said that they could just do a half hour a day rounded up to the nearest hour. The house became very confused by this statement and we spent the next few minutes clearing it up (omg I hate people). So one hour for one or two days; 2 hours for 3 or 4 days; and 3 hours for 5 or more days. Sabira stated again that she was not willing to do that and she absolutely would not. I got a little frustrated by this dictatorial attitude. It's not really her choice. It's the house's decision. It's like her saying she's not willing to do her job or listen to her constituents. I said it was the house's decision and she said we'd need a 3/4 vote to overturn any of the workshift manager's decisions. Sigh. This was one of the things I was afraid of with Sabira in a manager position. She's kind of a power hog who wants to push her weight around and sound tough. She wants things to be her decision because she knows best. She's one of those "I know best" personalities that are frustrating to deal with in your peers, but horrific to deal with in a superior or person in any position of power. As a workshift manager, I never threatened people with that 3/4 rule. I think anyone who does doesn't really deserve to be a manager. You should listen to what the house wants. They elected you. You're not there to boss them around or be mean to them. You're there to make sure the house runs smoothly. You stop people from making decisions that would benefit them at the expense of the whole house. You keep people's information up to date and try to get things running smoothly. You are the servant of the house, not it's boss. That's what it means to be a manager. Sabira didn't get that. She wanted to be the house's boss and tell us what she was willing to let us decide. At this point I was feeling less bad about usurping her and didn't feel at all guilty about bursting her bubble. She clearly had not read the bylaws because the workshift manager can be overturned by a simple majority vote in almost all situations. Here's a passage from our bylaws:
A workshift manager's allocation of hours to a particular workshift may only be overturned by a 3/4 vote by the house. This provision only applies to a workshift manager's determination of how many hours a workshift shall be worth. In the case of a dispute with a member over how long a workshift actually took to complete, or other such issues, the house shall retain its power to overturn the workshift manager's actions by majority vote.
So if Sabira says a shift is worth 1 hour and someone else says it should be worth 4, it would take 3/4 of the house to overturn her. In this situation, that was not the case. It's one thing to throw your weight around. It's quite another thing to throw your weight around when you don't have the authority to back it up. I will never understand why people will quote the bylaws without actually having read them. They're not that long really. And the parts that pertain to your specific job are definitely not that long. It's easy to gloss over room bids and things like that. And when people misquote the bylaws, they look extra stupid. I think it's that quoting the bylaws is an extremely persuasive argument (you can't really argue with that and it gives you a lot of authority), but the idea of reading 14 pages of "the managers shall do this" and "it is the responsibility of the workshift manager to do that" can be daunting to people. So they don't bother to actually read it, but when they start to feel cornered, they start to quote it and hope their bull shit can slide. And maybe Sabira didn't even realize that it was bull shit. She had heard that 3/4 rule before. It is easily the most misquoted rule in all the bylaws. A lot of people think it applies to every decision the workshift manager makes instead of the extremely limited situations it actually applies to. And this is another reason that it's bad to mention the 3/4 rule - you are way too likely to get overturn and look like an ass.
So to make a long story less long, when we voted on Jesse's revised proposal, Sabira was the only one to vote against it (though there were a handful of abstentions). In fact, I think 3/4 of the house might have actually overturned her, not that it matter. Then a lengthy discussion of whether or not to apply it retroactively came up and was narrowly voted down. I spearheaded that discussion. I wanted my old hours back since this was the policy now. I'm tired of being down hours when I shouldn't be. I probably made a lifelong enemy of Sabira by fighting for that. Whatever. As long as I mind my p's and q's, there's nothing she can do about it. And that's not really the way her mind works anyway. Anyway, I had already tread on her toes by fighting for the new policy and contradicting her when she said the extra amount of work it would create for her would be unreasonable. And then contradicting her again by clarifying the 3/4 rule. So I might as well go for broke and push even harder.
With Jesse's policy, I'm only going to owe 2 hours a week for most of the summer (summer school is only 4 days a week for me and this policy convinces me that it's not worth it to come back Sunday night). This is better than I expected, so I'm pretty happy about the situation. And honestly, there's nothing Sabira can do about it. There have been some cases in the past when someone was frequently not in the house and wanted to know if they could owe less than 5 hours a week. I think I would have been ok with it, but that's against the USCA bylaws, so I had to say no. If I only owe 2 hours all summer long and she argues with me about it, I have the leverage to overturn her. Because in summer, the minimum number of hours someone can owe weekly is not 3; it's 2. Stebbins is actually more strict with its hour requirements over summer. And if the house knew that, they might overturn that as well. And Sabira does not want that. Not that I think she's really going to give me trouble. I'm just prepared if she does.
I was wondering a little why I'm so mean to Sabira, but after writing this, I think I've changed my mind. She's a power hungry idiot. She strikes me as one of those people who was really awkward as a kid and didn't really have any friends. She could have been one of those kids that everyone picked on. When I look at her, I see someone who doesn't really get it. She could have easily changed the course of that conversation. She could have set the tone. It didn't even need to be a discussion. If she had just proposed a vote over her policy, it's possible that no one would have spoken up (I wouldn't have) with another policy before the vote was over. And then if someone spoke up, she could just say, well we just voted, so I think the house is ok with this. Then she could have said "let's talk after the meeting" or something else to defer discussion and it would have all gone away. I know Jesse wouldn't have followed through and talked with her after the meeting. He even said partway through the discussion "I don't know why I'm even fighting for this. I'm here all the time. It doesn't apply to me." He just thought her original policy was unfair. If she had addressed his concerns herself by offering a counter proposal (even the slightly unfair one of one hour per day), it probably wouldn't have been worth his effort to suggest the half hour a day rate. And if she had been less adamant against it and had not fought kicking and screaming, she might have been able to convince people by sounding rational and offering legitimate reasons why she thought the one hour a day rule made sense. She wants power (she's run for manager positions so many times - she says she needs the money, but it's so much easier to just get a part time job), but she doesn't know how to use it effectively. And now that she's been overturned once, it makes it that much easier for her to be overturned again. And chances are, she won't be able to reverse the pattern since she doesn't really know what she's doing. She could have gotten her way if she just knew how to handle people and meet them half way. Jesse's compromise of rounding up to the nearest hour is not what she wanted at all. Of course everyone else in the room felt like the people on opposite sides had met halfway just because neither one's original proposal was accepted. The made the rounding up policy all the more attractive because it looked like a moderate position. The truth is, it doesn't make much of a difference. Jesse's policy wasn't changed very much. It was still totally unacceptable to Sabira. Well tough shit. I'd feel bad about arguing with her and overturning her, but she was a fool to take such a hard-and-fast position on something she was guaranteed to lose. She tried to avoid the confrontation (asking people to email her) and tried to force the house into submission (bringing up the misquotation of the 3/4 rule), but that's not how you get your way. And if that's the way you think, you probably shouldn't get your way. I think she knew the house didn't like her policy, but she wanted to have it anyway. Oh well. You can't force your views on someone else just because you manage their workshifts. Maybe she'll realize that and maybe she won't. At least she's only workshift manager for the summer.
Friday, June 13, 2008
First impressions
Here's something I've thought for a while, but now I'm convinced. I give horrible first impressions. People who just meet me don't like me. When they get to know me, I think people like me (at least the ones I want to hang out with tend to). And because of that, I wouldn't even care about the first impressions thing. I'd be fine just waiting it out until people got to know me better. But the big problem is that that makes interviews really hard. Very few times have I ever been called back after an interview. I got called back for a research position from someone who just wanted hardworking grunt labor to run experiments. I got invited back from someone who had pretty much already given me the job and I was practically interviewing her to see if I was interested. And I got invited back to Berkeley for grad school (though that was a close call). I really can't think of anything else. However I can think of several times that I've been rejected from jobs I thought I would be perfect for and was certain no one else could do better than me. I got rejected from a cognitive linguistics research position that was along the lines of Lakoff's research and looked really interesting. I got rejected for a TA position for cogsci 1, even after one of the other TAs told the professor that she and I work well together and she'd prefer to work with me. And today I got rejected from a teaching placement for the fall that I really wanted. He didn't even tell me. He told Dan who then had to relay that information to me when I already thought it was a done deal.
I remember Susan telling me once that she's gotten an offer from every place where she's gotten as far as an interview. I wish I was that good at first impressions. I think I come off as gruff and mean, which is how I naturally am a little (if you don't know me well - I'm pretty scrappy at times). Except when I'm trying to suppress the crankiness I think I come off as fake or insincere. People who get to know me realize that I don't mean most of the cranky things I say and I'm not really as critical as I sound, but I think the first impression people get is not so great. I think even Susan, who I consider one of my closest friends now, didn't think anything of me when we first met. I should ask actually, but she might not remember - I don't think I made much of an impression. Moving in halfway through spring, I don't think I made much of an impression on anyone. Newcomers often find it hard to get to know people in the house once friendships have already formed. By anyway, my earliest memory of Susan was cooking with her when Marlee had signed out of the shift. I don't know what I was thinking. I had never cooked before. I remember Steven helped me, but even with the extra pair of hands, we were really slow. I remember peeling a mountain of potatoes and being told to hurry up because they needed to go in soon to be ready in time. I remember cutting an enormous bowl of onions and not having the sense to stand away from the finished product (or to dump them in water to suck up the tearful onion juice). Steven and I were one big ball of tears. I think Susan was not ecstatic about dealing with two incompetent sous chefs in place of one competent one when she was concerned about being ready in time for dinner, but we finished on time, so everything was good.
Perhaps this story is out of place because most of the time, first impressions do not take place in high stress situations, but even with someone I get along with really well, I don't think I made a great first impression. I'm trying to think back to other close friends and see if I can remember how things went the first time I met them... Dylan I had a very negative first impression of as I recall, but I don't think he had a negative impression of me. Actually, I got the sense he was so concerned with trying to be polite that he wasn't really paying attention to anyone else. Hmmm... maybe he's bad with first impressions too, or at least was freshman year. He's quite a bit more suave now. Steven's first impression of me wasn't too interesting either. He told me his first thought was, "Oh. Alex has a girlfriend." Then a few days later, "Oh, nevermind. I guess Michael has a girlfriend." And that was about it.
So I don't know of anyone who had an overwhelmingly positive first experience with me. I can't really think of anyone who had even a slightly positive first experience, but put in the same enclosed space for long enough (with Dylan, that was being on the same floor of the dorms and with Susan that was Stebbins), or with the same group of people for long enough (with Steven that was hanging out with the nerds), I think I eventually grow on people.
But perhaps I'm not looking at this correctly. Just because my closest friends were not super close to me the first time we met doesn't mean that no one was. Actually, much to my chagrin, I think I make a great first impression on conservative old people. I guess that's not something to get too upset about, but I'd rather make a good first impression on people I'd like to hang out and work with. If I only get job offers from old conservative schools and none from any liberal schools, I'm going to have a problem. When I'm around conservatives, I can tell and I become very quiet, well mannered, and respectful. I get on my "I do what I'm supposed to do" face. I guess it's just a reflex I picked up in high school. Actually, whether they're conservative or not, I try to treat old people respectfully. I think they're not treated well in general. I once went to a nursing home in high school. A friend convinced me to volunteer to spend some time with them. She said they really appreciated the attention. Bull shit. I lost all respect for her after that day. She spent the whole hour singing (she was in an a capella group) and smiling. I had to leave partway through the hour to cry in the bathroom because I couldn't believe anyone could treat people the way these old people were treated. They were all strapped down in chairs, not allowed to walk around. Who cares that exercise prolongs your life? It was obvious that people had stuck their old parents there to die, and the sooner they did, the sooner they could stop paying nursing home bills. One person kept telling me that if I could just get word to her sister, her sister would come and take her away from there. She was practically begging me to help her escape. I felt so awful, but all I could think was that her sister was probably dead. Another one kept trying to talk to me in an asian language I couldn't understand. I tried to understand her. I wished I could. She was so insistent and she kept trying, but it was no use. How could my friend have kept smiling during all that? Ever since then, I've gotten an idea of how poorly old people can be treated sometimes. Our society doesn't really value the elderly. Younger is always better, hence aging celebrities always getting plastic surgery to stay in the limelight just a bit longer; no one wants to look at wrinkles. Once an aging person retires and their money runs out, they become a burden and are shoved away. I admit, it was really hard to visit my grandpa during his last days. He was in so much pain and was so unhappy. He would yell at my grandma and make her run all over fetching his footrest, removing his footrest, getting him a blanket, getting him some salt, insulting her cooking, to the point that it was really hard to watch. My uncle never visited during his last years. My mom came over frequently, but she was always depressed by the sight. How would I deal with a senile parent? I don't know how I'd handle it for sure, but I am certain that I would not put one of my parents in a nursing home with people who don't love then and who don't feel the need to cry at the sight of old people being shoved away.
So anyway back to my main point, I tend to make a good impression on older people. I think it's just because I listen to them and treat them with respect, which is something they may not be used to. They might not even realize that they're unused to it (maybe just get a sense that they like me), though chances are they probably do. By that age, people generally realize what's going on around them. Or they become senile from lack of thinking about that kind of stuff their whole life, in which case you probably aren't having a conversation with them anyway.
So I think I can make a good impression on certain types of people, but there are a lot of people who I don't think I make much of an impression on. But that whole side ramble about the elderly gives me an idea. I make a good impression on old people because I respect them. Maybe I don't respect random people I meet enough. It's true that I generally don't give other people the benefit of the doubt until I get to know them a little. I'd rather be wary of someone new and become friends slower than be open and friendly and get burned by someone mean. There are a lot of mean people out there. I think that teacher who didn't want to work with me (the guy who spawned this blog post) was kind of mean. I was trying to be friendly, but I guess I didn't come off right. He told Dan that his class was a really urban setting and he didn't think I was a good fit. What's that supposed to mean? Did he just call me a racist? Or did he just think I'd be unable to relate? Unfortunately, that may be true. I really didn't know how to reach some of my minority students and a lot of them stopped coming to class. Was that because of me or because they had been struggling for months and hated the class? I'll never know. It was probably due to a lot of things actually and not really me. One girl never showed up for her first period class, so I shouldn't take that one personally. Another girl just did what that first one did and also stopped showing up (also she was going through a lot at home and had to move in with her grandma because of some problems with her parents - that could not have made it easier to focus on school). But with these two cases, and probably with some others as well, I don't know that I supported them enough. Honestly, I don't think I could have prevented the things that happened and certainly not alone. Maybe if things had been going fine at home and their parents had decided that education was really important and they were going to work with their kids to always do homework and all their friends didn't moan about how awful math was, it would have been different. But that's not the way it was and I didn't know how to change things so that they could have been better. So maybe this jerk teacher was right and maybe I would have had trouble with the kids, but to me, that just means I should be in there working on it more, not that I should be turned away as a hopeless case. I was willing to learn. I still am, but I guess it won't be with him. And maybe that was just a bull shit excuse and he just didn't like me. I don't know. But he shouldn't have lead me on and made me think he was willing to work with me. He was really nice and was talking about how he'd support me and take notes during class and how we could talk after class because that's when lunch would be. I really got the impression that he was going to work with me. I never suspected that he was going to write Dan an email right after meeting with me to say that he didn't like me and wouldn't work with me. And it's even more insulting that he didn't send that email to me and that he made Dan be the messenger. Dan told me he'd been dreading our meeting because he didn't want to be the bearer of bad news. What a jerk to shove that off on someone else.
Steven told me that I dodged a bullet by giving this mean guy a negative first impression. He told me that if this guy had liked me, he still would have been a jerk who was willing to do a scummy thing like that and I'd be stuck working with him (since I didn't realize what a jerk he was and would have been happy to work with him until I got his rejection via Dan). He also said that of the six jobs he applied for, he was only given one job offer. He even made it to a second round interview with another place before he never heard from them again (jerks). But in any event, getting one job offer after applying to 6 places is considered a great percentage. He's convinced that his average would have only gone down if he applied more places. Now a 1 out of 6 is a failing grade in school, but in job offers, all you need is one and his one offer was an amazing job, so he considers it an A+. I agree. I don't think he could have worked anywhere better.
So maybe I'll get rejected from a lot of places. I mean, it's bound to happen. And maybe it's a good thing that a jerk rejected me. But I wish I could have been the one doing the rejections. Susan does great at all her interviews and then she has the option of picking and choosing between them. She went on an interview for a management position at some department store (I forget which), but as soon as she found out she was going to have to work weekends, she lost interest (essentially turning them down during the interview). And it wasn't a problem because she had an interview somewhere else and got not only a job offer, but a job offer with really good pay. I want to be able to pick and choose too. I really think I'm qualified for most of the jobs I apply for. And not just qualified, I generally think I'm the best applicant (maybe that arrogance doesn't suit me during interviews...). But it's so frustrating being a great applicant, but getting rejected because I don't rub some interviewer the right way. I know that as a math teacher I'm in pretty high demand, so no matter what, I know I'm going to get some job. And I know that at whatever job I get, I'm going to do well (or learn to do well) and make a niche for myself. But it's probably not going to be on my terms. I'm probably not going to be the one picking and choosing. I should be able to move at some point. When I have more job experience, I'll look better to people and perhaps looking at my resume will color their first impression in a positive way. Things will work out I'm sure, but right now in my fledgling stages, I'm not in a great position when I have to rely more heavily on my first impression charm.
I remember Susan telling me once that she's gotten an offer from every place where she's gotten as far as an interview. I wish I was that good at first impressions. I think I come off as gruff and mean, which is how I naturally am a little (if you don't know me well - I'm pretty scrappy at times). Except when I'm trying to suppress the crankiness I think I come off as fake or insincere. People who get to know me realize that I don't mean most of the cranky things I say and I'm not really as critical as I sound, but I think the first impression people get is not so great. I think even Susan, who I consider one of my closest friends now, didn't think anything of me when we first met. I should ask actually, but she might not remember - I don't think I made much of an impression. Moving in halfway through spring, I don't think I made much of an impression on anyone. Newcomers often find it hard to get to know people in the house once friendships have already formed. By anyway, my earliest memory of Susan was cooking with her when Marlee had signed out of the shift. I don't know what I was thinking. I had never cooked before. I remember Steven helped me, but even with the extra pair of hands, we were really slow. I remember peeling a mountain of potatoes and being told to hurry up because they needed to go in soon to be ready in time. I remember cutting an enormous bowl of onions and not having the sense to stand away from the finished product (or to dump them in water to suck up the tearful onion juice). Steven and I were one big ball of tears. I think Susan was not ecstatic about dealing with two incompetent sous chefs in place of one competent one when she was concerned about being ready in time for dinner, but we finished on time, so everything was good.
Perhaps this story is out of place because most of the time, first impressions do not take place in high stress situations, but even with someone I get along with really well, I don't think I made a great first impression. I'm trying to think back to other close friends and see if I can remember how things went the first time I met them... Dylan I had a very negative first impression of as I recall, but I don't think he had a negative impression of me. Actually, I got the sense he was so concerned with trying to be polite that he wasn't really paying attention to anyone else. Hmmm... maybe he's bad with first impressions too, or at least was freshman year. He's quite a bit more suave now. Steven's first impression of me wasn't too interesting either. He told me his first thought was, "Oh. Alex has a girlfriend." Then a few days later, "Oh, nevermind. I guess Michael has a girlfriend." And that was about it.
So I don't know of anyone who had an overwhelmingly positive first experience with me. I can't really think of anyone who had even a slightly positive first experience, but put in the same enclosed space for long enough (with Dylan, that was being on the same floor of the dorms and with Susan that was Stebbins), or with the same group of people for long enough (with Steven that was hanging out with the nerds), I think I eventually grow on people.
But perhaps I'm not looking at this correctly. Just because my closest friends were not super close to me the first time we met doesn't mean that no one was. Actually, much to my chagrin, I think I make a great first impression on conservative old people. I guess that's not something to get too upset about, but I'd rather make a good first impression on people I'd like to hang out and work with. If I only get job offers from old conservative schools and none from any liberal schools, I'm going to have a problem. When I'm around conservatives, I can tell and I become very quiet, well mannered, and respectful. I get on my "I do what I'm supposed to do" face. I guess it's just a reflex I picked up in high school. Actually, whether they're conservative or not, I try to treat old people respectfully. I think they're not treated well in general. I once went to a nursing home in high school. A friend convinced me to volunteer to spend some time with them. She said they really appreciated the attention. Bull shit. I lost all respect for her after that day. She spent the whole hour singing (she was in an a capella group) and smiling. I had to leave partway through the hour to cry in the bathroom because I couldn't believe anyone could treat people the way these old people were treated. They were all strapped down in chairs, not allowed to walk around. Who cares that exercise prolongs your life? It was obvious that people had stuck their old parents there to die, and the sooner they did, the sooner they could stop paying nursing home bills. One person kept telling me that if I could just get word to her sister, her sister would come and take her away from there. She was practically begging me to help her escape. I felt so awful, but all I could think was that her sister was probably dead. Another one kept trying to talk to me in an asian language I couldn't understand. I tried to understand her. I wished I could. She was so insistent and she kept trying, but it was no use. How could my friend have kept smiling during all that? Ever since then, I've gotten an idea of how poorly old people can be treated sometimes. Our society doesn't really value the elderly. Younger is always better, hence aging celebrities always getting plastic surgery to stay in the limelight just a bit longer; no one wants to look at wrinkles. Once an aging person retires and their money runs out, they become a burden and are shoved away. I admit, it was really hard to visit my grandpa during his last days. He was in so much pain and was so unhappy. He would yell at my grandma and make her run all over fetching his footrest, removing his footrest, getting him a blanket, getting him some salt, insulting her cooking, to the point that it was really hard to watch. My uncle never visited during his last years. My mom came over frequently, but she was always depressed by the sight. How would I deal with a senile parent? I don't know how I'd handle it for sure, but I am certain that I would not put one of my parents in a nursing home with people who don't love then and who don't feel the need to cry at the sight of old people being shoved away.
So anyway back to my main point, I tend to make a good impression on older people. I think it's just because I listen to them and treat them with respect, which is something they may not be used to. They might not even realize that they're unused to it (maybe just get a sense that they like me), though chances are they probably do. By that age, people generally realize what's going on around them. Or they become senile from lack of thinking about that kind of stuff their whole life, in which case you probably aren't having a conversation with them anyway.
So I think I can make a good impression on certain types of people, but there are a lot of people who I don't think I make much of an impression on. But that whole side ramble about the elderly gives me an idea. I make a good impression on old people because I respect them. Maybe I don't respect random people I meet enough. It's true that I generally don't give other people the benefit of the doubt until I get to know them a little. I'd rather be wary of someone new and become friends slower than be open and friendly and get burned by someone mean. There are a lot of mean people out there. I think that teacher who didn't want to work with me (the guy who spawned this blog post) was kind of mean. I was trying to be friendly, but I guess I didn't come off right. He told Dan that his class was a really urban setting and he didn't think I was a good fit. What's that supposed to mean? Did he just call me a racist? Or did he just think I'd be unable to relate? Unfortunately, that may be true. I really didn't know how to reach some of my minority students and a lot of them stopped coming to class. Was that because of me or because they had been struggling for months and hated the class? I'll never know. It was probably due to a lot of things actually and not really me. One girl never showed up for her first period class, so I shouldn't take that one personally. Another girl just did what that first one did and also stopped showing up (also she was going through a lot at home and had to move in with her grandma because of some problems with her parents - that could not have made it easier to focus on school). But with these two cases, and probably with some others as well, I don't know that I supported them enough. Honestly, I don't think I could have prevented the things that happened and certainly not alone. Maybe if things had been going fine at home and their parents had decided that education was really important and they were going to work with their kids to always do homework and all their friends didn't moan about how awful math was, it would have been different. But that's not the way it was and I didn't know how to change things so that they could have been better. So maybe this jerk teacher was right and maybe I would have had trouble with the kids, but to me, that just means I should be in there working on it more, not that I should be turned away as a hopeless case. I was willing to learn. I still am, but I guess it won't be with him. And maybe that was just a bull shit excuse and he just didn't like me. I don't know. But he shouldn't have lead me on and made me think he was willing to work with me. He was really nice and was talking about how he'd support me and take notes during class and how we could talk after class because that's when lunch would be. I really got the impression that he was going to work with me. I never suspected that he was going to write Dan an email right after meeting with me to say that he didn't like me and wouldn't work with me. And it's even more insulting that he didn't send that email to me and that he made Dan be the messenger. Dan told me he'd been dreading our meeting because he didn't want to be the bearer of bad news. What a jerk to shove that off on someone else.
Steven told me that I dodged a bullet by giving this mean guy a negative first impression. He told me that if this guy had liked me, he still would have been a jerk who was willing to do a scummy thing like that and I'd be stuck working with him (since I didn't realize what a jerk he was and would have been happy to work with him until I got his rejection via Dan). He also said that of the six jobs he applied for, he was only given one job offer. He even made it to a second round interview with another place before he never heard from them again (jerks). But in any event, getting one job offer after applying to 6 places is considered a great percentage. He's convinced that his average would have only gone down if he applied more places. Now a 1 out of 6 is a failing grade in school, but in job offers, all you need is one and his one offer was an amazing job, so he considers it an A+. I agree. I don't think he could have worked anywhere better.
So maybe I'll get rejected from a lot of places. I mean, it's bound to happen. And maybe it's a good thing that a jerk rejected me. But I wish I could have been the one doing the rejections. Susan does great at all her interviews and then she has the option of picking and choosing between them. She went on an interview for a management position at some department store (I forget which), but as soon as she found out she was going to have to work weekends, she lost interest (essentially turning them down during the interview). And it wasn't a problem because she had an interview somewhere else and got not only a job offer, but a job offer with really good pay. I want to be able to pick and choose too. I really think I'm qualified for most of the jobs I apply for. And not just qualified, I generally think I'm the best applicant (maybe that arrogance doesn't suit me during interviews...). But it's so frustrating being a great applicant, but getting rejected because I don't rub some interviewer the right way. I know that as a math teacher I'm in pretty high demand, so no matter what, I know I'm going to get some job. And I know that at whatever job I get, I'm going to do well (or learn to do well) and make a niche for myself. But it's probably not going to be on my terms. I'm probably not going to be the one picking and choosing. I should be able to move at some point. When I have more job experience, I'll look better to people and perhaps looking at my resume will color their first impression in a positive way. Things will work out I'm sure, but right now in my fledgling stages, I'm not in a great position when I have to rely more heavily on my first impression charm.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Gaze
One thing I've noticed about myself in most social situations is that I don't know where to look. When someone else is talking, I look at them, though sometimes that feels a little awkward to be staring someone in the eye for an extended period. I definitely feel the urge to look away. Though it's a lot easier when someone else is talking. You're expected to look at them. I find it most difficult to know where to look when I am talking, especially if I'm talking to more than one person. With just one other person, I suppose I'm expected to look at them, though again it feels weird to stare them right in the eye the whole time. With more than one person, how often am I supposed to look at one rather than the other? And looking at either is a little unpleasant. And knowing they're both looking at me can be a little weird too. I like it when two people sit side by side and sort of stare 45 degrees toward the person they're talking to. The real reason for that is because it's uncomfortable to twist the body to face the other person, but I like being able to stare out into space and enjoy the scenery while listening to the other person speak or talking myself. Sometimes even when I'm not sitting adjacent to someone, I'll stare off into space while speaking. Every once in a while, the person I'm talking to will turn to see what I'm looking at, possibly thinking it relates to what I'm saying. I hastily explain I'm not looking at anything and continue the conversation while trying to look at them a little more frequently. I often try to busy myself while speaking so that there's something I can be looking at that won't draw attention, such as taking an extra long time to butter a bagel or playing with some paper at hand.
I don't know for sure, but I think this is weird.
I don't think other people dislike looking at others as much as I do. I think part of it is that I've been told it's rude to stare. I remember once as a little kid I was riding on the subway with my parents. I was a little bored, so to pass the time, I started staring at strangers. I would stare at them until they looked away. It was a little like an unsolicited staring contest. I remember feeling a little kid rush of power every time a stranger looked away before I did. And then one of them smiled at me. I was totally taken aback. I think it was the only time I lost the staring game and looked away first. The woman who smiled at me thought I was just a curious little kid looking around and didn't realize that I was being a competitive little asshole, trying to "beat" strangers by staring at them, which I knew I wasn't really supposed to be doing. I don't think I ever did that "who will look away first" game again. I suppose I felt a little ashamed because in a little way, I was trying to build myself up at their expense, and when I came across a genuinely nice person (who it had no effect against anyway), I felt bad about it. Now whenever I see a little kid look at me, I always smile at them. It is a little awkward and unpleasant to have a stranger look directly at you, even if it is just a kid. We don't get too weirded out when kids do it because we think, oh they're just kids. If an adult did that, we'd be really weirded out and wonder why they were looking at us. I suppose we think that kids haven't yet realized that it's weird or rude to stare at strangers. Chances are, they have realized it, but just want to do some little thing where they can be bad. Or perhaps they're just curious and their curiosity outweighs their desire to be good. Whatever that case is, I always smile because really they're good people and I don't mind them staring at me too much. And maybe one of them will have a similar experience as myself.
But anyway, back to my main point. That whole paragraph was meant to illustrate that I've been thinking about looking at people even from a young age and that one of the possible explanations for my aversion to looking at people comes from it possibly being rude. It may just be that I never learned the etiquette surrounding staring at people. But I think it's more than that. When I stare someone in the eye (such as when they're talking and I feel I should be listening), it requires a lot of attention. It's not easy. This makes things especially hard at job interviews, when you are expected to look someone in the eye and listen carefully to what they say. Looking someone in the eye is hard for me. I often find that I lose track of their words because I'm focusing so hard on keeping their gaze met and remembering that they're looking at me. I'll often push up my glasses, even though they probably weren't slipping before. It's just anything to take my mind off of looking them straight in the eye. And of course it's a high pressure situation where you're trying to impress the person so that you can get a job, so I get extra self conscious of what I'm doing and feel even more reluctant to look away. I have so much extra stuff swimming around in my brain, trying to keep track of, that I find it hard to parse their words. I think for a lot of people, staring them straight in the eye means that you're paying attention and listening to them (that's why I think it's a good idea to do that in interviews), but I can't really pay attention unless I'm looking away. However, during an interview, looks are more important than reality, so I suck it up and stare right at them.
So this is my reality, but I do think it's weird. It makes me think a little. Am I slightly autistic? I know autistic kids have trouble meeting someone's gaze. I know they can get focused on a problem and lose track of time because they're thinking about it so hard (I do that too). I know they enjoy mathematical and technical stuff, like I do. I have a few of the symptoms, however, I'm also able to function pretty well in society. I doubt many people would think I was autistic. In fact, I've always been pretty popular and able to get along with people well. I don't have much difficulty getting elected to positions (I was my senior class president, junior prom princess, got elected to workshift manager every time I ran). I also have a generally good understanding of people. People don't often surprise me with their actions and I can usually tell when people are mean. However, animals also tend to have that sense. They can sort of feel when someone is unhappy or angry, not that people are always subtle about that. And I know autistic people tend to have a rapport with animals (they tend to understand them). I've always been good with animals. Steven's mom's cat loves me and has never scratched me. I once got a random stray cat to sit in my lap for an hour and be petted. The poor thing had just got in a fight with another stray. But that point aside, I think this may be evidence of another symptom of autism. Now whatever I have (if anything) is really low grade. It has been mild enough that I don't think it impacts me negatively. I'm pretty successful all around. So this isn't something to feel bad about, in other words. But it is interesting. I might want to get tested and see if it's true. It's always good to know about yourself. I suppose I'll talk to my mom about this a little.
I don't know for sure, but I think this is weird.
I don't think other people dislike looking at others as much as I do. I think part of it is that I've been told it's rude to stare. I remember once as a little kid I was riding on the subway with my parents. I was a little bored, so to pass the time, I started staring at strangers. I would stare at them until they looked away. It was a little like an unsolicited staring contest. I remember feeling a little kid rush of power every time a stranger looked away before I did. And then one of them smiled at me. I was totally taken aback. I think it was the only time I lost the staring game and looked away first. The woman who smiled at me thought I was just a curious little kid looking around and didn't realize that I was being a competitive little asshole, trying to "beat" strangers by staring at them, which I knew I wasn't really supposed to be doing. I don't think I ever did that "who will look away first" game again. I suppose I felt a little ashamed because in a little way, I was trying to build myself up at their expense, and when I came across a genuinely nice person (who it had no effect against anyway), I felt bad about it. Now whenever I see a little kid look at me, I always smile at them. It is a little awkward and unpleasant to have a stranger look directly at you, even if it is just a kid. We don't get too weirded out when kids do it because we think, oh they're just kids. If an adult did that, we'd be really weirded out and wonder why they were looking at us. I suppose we think that kids haven't yet realized that it's weird or rude to stare at strangers. Chances are, they have realized it, but just want to do some little thing where they can be bad. Or perhaps they're just curious and their curiosity outweighs their desire to be good. Whatever that case is, I always smile because really they're good people and I don't mind them staring at me too much. And maybe one of them will have a similar experience as myself.
But anyway, back to my main point. That whole paragraph was meant to illustrate that I've been thinking about looking at people even from a young age and that one of the possible explanations for my aversion to looking at people comes from it possibly being rude. It may just be that I never learned the etiquette surrounding staring at people. But I think it's more than that. When I stare someone in the eye (such as when they're talking and I feel I should be listening), it requires a lot of attention. It's not easy. This makes things especially hard at job interviews, when you are expected to look someone in the eye and listen carefully to what they say. Looking someone in the eye is hard for me. I often find that I lose track of their words because I'm focusing so hard on keeping their gaze met and remembering that they're looking at me. I'll often push up my glasses, even though they probably weren't slipping before. It's just anything to take my mind off of looking them straight in the eye. And of course it's a high pressure situation where you're trying to impress the person so that you can get a job, so I get extra self conscious of what I'm doing and feel even more reluctant to look away. I have so much extra stuff swimming around in my brain, trying to keep track of, that I find it hard to parse their words. I think for a lot of people, staring them straight in the eye means that you're paying attention and listening to them (that's why I think it's a good idea to do that in interviews), but I can't really pay attention unless I'm looking away. However, during an interview, looks are more important than reality, so I suck it up and stare right at them.
So this is my reality, but I do think it's weird. It makes me think a little. Am I slightly autistic? I know autistic kids have trouble meeting someone's gaze. I know they can get focused on a problem and lose track of time because they're thinking about it so hard (I do that too). I know they enjoy mathematical and technical stuff, like I do. I have a few of the symptoms, however, I'm also able to function pretty well in society. I doubt many people would think I was autistic. In fact, I've always been pretty popular and able to get along with people well. I don't have much difficulty getting elected to positions (I was my senior class president, junior prom princess, got elected to workshift manager every time I ran). I also have a generally good understanding of people. People don't often surprise me with their actions and I can usually tell when people are mean. However, animals also tend to have that sense. They can sort of feel when someone is unhappy or angry, not that people are always subtle about that. And I know autistic people tend to have a rapport with animals (they tend to understand them). I've always been good with animals. Steven's mom's cat loves me and has never scratched me. I once got a random stray cat to sit in my lap for an hour and be petted. The poor thing had just got in a fight with another stray. But that point aside, I think this may be evidence of another symptom of autism. Now whatever I have (if anything) is really low grade. It has been mild enough that I don't think it impacts me negatively. I'm pretty successful all around. So this isn't something to feel bad about, in other words. But it is interesting. I might want to get tested and see if it's true. It's always good to know about yourself. I suppose I'll talk to my mom about this a little.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)