When At Work
Some lessons I’ve learned so far after working full-time for about eight months. Of course, there are many more lessons to go, but for a start, let me get some things straight.
#1. It’s good to have an ambition. It is what drives us and keeps us going in our path to success. But ambitions can never be fulfilled without the virtue few possess – PATIENCE. Hence, if you want to reach the top, then it will take quite a bit of time. But on the other hand, if you take too long, it’s time to change direction.
#2. To be ignorant or indifferent is useful at times, especially when dealing with gossips and rumours at work. Females are very well known for their gossipy habits as well as their bitching-around-attitude. If you happen to be working around females, just try to be friendly and at the same time, apathetic about their comments. Be yourself and do what your boss tells you to do. In time, they would just probably shut up and get on with life. Just remember, rumours are falsehoods and would only die out if you continue to bear the standard of truth, and carry a sense of integrity at work. I would not be surprised if men bitch around too. If you are a man, they are probably jealous (on the contrary, if you are a woman, you are probably ugly). Ignore their gossips and do what you are told to do. It may affect your “360-degrees” appraisal a little with regard to ‘getting along’ with your colleagues, but at the end of the day, the person you are suppose to please is your boss.
#3. Opportunities are not for free. They are earned. Just when we have the ambition and the right attitude in doing our job well, we also need time to buy opportunities. Yet, these goodies do not come as and when they like, but like respect, they are earned if you stay long enough in that job without losing sight of your passion/vision.
#4. The risk of not getting back the job you’ve rejected is definitely higher than losing your job. No employer would ever re-employ someone who once worked with him/her, quits, and then ask to return as a prodigal worker – unless one is REALLY good and in demand, which is rarely the case. It’s okay to job-hop for good reasons (i.e. the job is not your cup of tea, or some big troubling issues regarding backstabbing etc). However, it is generally not a good idea to leave just because you don’t get promoted, or recognised as a distinct employee of the month. Within a year and you expect that to happen? This is impossible! This is also impractically stupid! To make such great expectations of your performance at the very first year of your career is like making fairy tales out of toilet paper. Too impossible. Certainly, not a calculated risk at all.
It is certainly a challenge for me at the very first year of my career. This is the period when I am quite vulnerable to non-sense like gossips, rumours, incorrect judgments, cliques, and other challenges like learning how to make proper presentations. But, I am not giving up hope on myself. I am quite assured that, in this stable job I’ve found, opportunities will come in time, if I do pass the test of patience. I know I have plenty to learn from my seniors, and I do not care what others think of me now, other than what my boss thinks of me. For me, I serve only one boss, and I would not change my mind with regard to the boss I am serving, unless he changes his. Loyalty is no longer a virtue in pragmatic Singapore. Yet, without loyalty, it is impossible to please your superior, much less to lead your subordinates to the path of success in whatever projects you are in charge of. For a disloyal person who betrays his master by being a de facto, will most promptly be executed by his new found master. The fact is this: Quit your job and your life will never be the same again.
Avoid Psychology; Embrace Neuroscience
How normal can a normal person be, without getting himself “labelled” by professionals as psychologically challenged, or psychotic (to put it in a very blunt manner)? According to Corcoran et al (2007), families of psychotic children in their teens were interviewed. They provided several key characteristics of what constitute the premorbid stage of psychotic disorders as well as the profound but gradual changes in behaviour and mood during the teen years.
In the premorbid stage, the child is:
- Functioning normally and looks happy, but particularly sensitive to negative remarks or insults; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Exceptionally vulnerable to hurtful things; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Easily startled by loud noises;
- Shy and socially withdrawn; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Feels awkward or uneasy among people or within crowds; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Slow developer both socially and sexually; (I thought I have it in the past, only the social part)
- Social immaturity and lack of insight; (I thought I have it in the past as compared to now)
- Very insular person (a book-reader and computer-oriented person);
- Problems concentrating; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Bad spatial sense;
- Dyslexic but yet possesses good memory; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Slow to the point that he or she started reading late in the early life; (I thought I have it in the past, for me it’s English)
- Slow in school or dislike school as a result. (I thought I have it in the past, and everyone dislikes school in some sense)
It seems that I could fit into the risk of psychoticism as I attempt to relate my past with the characteristics as described by parents of psychotic children. Either I am wrong, or that I have totally bad memory of my childhood. However, I think anyone can just pick a trait or characteristic and relate to it as though he or she had once possessed it, but does this make them, or me, or almost everybody, proned to be psychotic? As far as I can predict, everyone is at risk for everything and anything! The measures of behavioural traits using what is deemed as science have yet to explain the ambiguity of the possible causes of a certain dependent variable, which is the mental illness itself. How does one distinguish between normal individuals and “normal” individuals, as well as individuals who are mentally ill?
Is being slow in school a starting point for problems later in life? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is being extremely introverted a prodromal to mental illness like schizophrenia? It could possibly be one of the characteristics, yet it could possibly not be so. Is being extremely prone to anger a risk of psychotic manifestations? Or is it just the anger problem that needs some management? Is sleeping all day (hypersomnia) a symptom of laziness? Or is it just depression, or affective psychosis, or other mental illness that has hypersomnia as its comorbid symptom? Cormobidity – the co-existence of various behavioural traits and deficits that makes everything so confusing.
Furthermore, the consumption of antipsychotic drugs somehow paints the picture in my mind in a way as though the mentally ill were despised of their actual behaviour (however ways in which they attempt to be who they are). Picture this: You see a weird person on the street who talks in a different accent or uses unique words to describe a subject during a conversation. He seems to be walking well but yet, in a slow manner. He tends to speak with several pauses and appears to have quite low self-esteem as he stutters at the start of his sentences. He was a slow learner in school and dropped out while doing his sixth grade. He was disinterested in attending social events but loves to be by himself reading novels and fan-fictions alike. He goes out alone and seems to enjoy computer games alot. He has a few “game buddies” whom he plays game with but doesn’t really consider them as close friends, but rather, acquaintances. He avoids eye contact while talking to strangers as he is rather shy. He has extreme stage fright and doesn’t feel comfortable being together with a huge group of friends or people. He hates social gatherings but seems to perform better in his job as a cemetary caretaker. Of course, this character I have described is deliberately made up. But what I am trying to bring across is that anyone will tend to possess certain qualities reflected upon the descriptions of what constitutes the prelude of a psychotic disorder. Does this mean that the guy I’ve mentioned above is to be warded and treated like someone who is of higher risk, and therefore, institutionalised as a patient?
What do we do to people like this? Certainly, we drug them, give them psychotherapy, and keep them in our observation list for a life-long period. So by drugging these individuals, are we trying to tell the world that these individuals are despised by the society for having different or special traits that go against the social norm? Thus in addition, by removing these despised traits, which in turn depriving them of some other essential bodily functions, is considered just and in line with the humanistic view of basic human rights? Imagine that someone who is singing out loud with a voice that appears to be rather unique, and it does not gain the popularity (consensus) of a population (society). So what do we do? We spike his or her drink to ensure (in the hope) that the prescribed drug would take away the symptoms of singing aloud in a rather disturbing voice. In return, assuming that we do not get a singing individual with a lousy voice, but someone who appears to have difficulty standing or moving about, what does this drug seem to prove? Yes, we have successfully taken away the singing symptoms, but somehow paralysed the individual after removing what we despised as a “bad” trait.
I have no issue with the utility of drugs on patients, but I am concerned about the biological markers that are yet to be determined for quite a number of psychiatric disorders. So for those who are about to sign up for a psychology class in tertiary college, do consider the fact that understanding human behaviour is not enough for one to place immediate judgement as to who is suffering from what kind of disorders. Therefore, in conclusion, I want to make it clear to those who have interest in studying the human brain, avoid the psychology major, and go for Neuroscience. The current trend to studying and comprehending the embodiment of the human mind is nothing other than Neuroscience itself. With it, it holds the key to your future understanding of why and how disorders come about. It will, I believe, provide future answers and solutions to solve our current ethical issues of whether certain psychotic drugs are useful, or whether mental illness even exists.
p.s. I do have the journal as cited in this entry. Do email me for it if you are interested.
