A few days ago I decided to sit down with myself and make a list of all the adjectives used by others to describe me. I wouldn't keep track of things said to me once by a stranger in the street but I would focus on patterns: characterizations attributed to me by people who have known me for more than just a few seconds. However enticing to list the positives: poised, good hearted, confident, I decided I would also address the negatives that my instinct told me were unjust but then again, whose gut feeling tells them they are wrong? So while some people find me honest, others find me distant. While some find me beautiful, others find me vain. But who is right?
In my opinion, everyone is right and everyone is wrong. But choosing to reject negatives all together just to shield myself from feelings of self doubt or embracing the positives as an ego boost means no evolution. One sided appreciations of evaluations means staying intact but while staying as you were means you are not getting shorter, it also means you are not growing taller.
In order to begin evaluating my personality, I decided to tap into the techniques I used as an undergraduate in order to write papers. I remember being assigned a paper in a Political Communications class were I had to detect and analyze the communicational techniques a politician used in his 500+ page book. The professor linked me to two 20 page articles by analysts reviewing the book and listing the techniques they detected. She told me that they had grasped the essence of the book and that I didn't need to read all 500 pages but only the two reviews. I disagreed. Even if the analysts did note everything, assuming that their evaluation of the book is accurate without having read the book myself would be irresponsible. So I read all 500 pages, kept notes for myself and then read the reviews and made parallel analyses.
If I was so consciously careful about evaluating another human's labors of intellect, why trust reviews to draw conclusions about myself without trying to "read" my story first?
Another thing I noticed about reviews is that commentators tend to focus on things you did. In fact, in an era of expanding digital communication and lessening face to face interactions, to-do lists are our main product of promotion through social media channels. From Linkedin pages to Instagram accounts, where we work, which graduate school we got accepted into and how fit of a body we have grown into, is information about things we did, indirectly tattling on who we really are. But even though accomplishments may be significant of our instincts, they can only lead to hypotheses.
So why allow other's hypotheses form your sense of self and why only focus on how well you completed your to-do lists in order to draw conclusions?
I would say, test your instincts, your values and what is important to you by feeling things out. Do you feel at peace when leading a project at work? Do you feel that your senses are synchronized when you write history projects? Do you know you are producing labors of intuition when you are volunteering? Don't censor yourself and don't admonish you. Take a breather. Don't rush into doing before being.
But when you have so much to-do, why fret over being? Why work on you? Why cherish egoism? Because if you align your personality, your everyday practices and choices with your purpose, what is really important to you, no one can touch you and no one can stop you. Before you do, ask yourself: what is your intention? What do you want to accomplish? What do you want to produce?
Being selfless before owning your sense of self means you are not giving as a whole person and it means you are not giving as much as you have to offer. Giving, working and trying just because you have to is undoubtedly effective in means of survival but will turn exhausting if you don't know why you are doing it. So be before you do. Ask yourself: Who are you and what are you going to do with it?
To follow my Today I Failed At movement, click here
To contact me, email: spyropoulosdaphne@gmail.com