Reply to comment

To be honest, thinking about this is really giving me a headache. So I am going to get it out of my system here.

Not to talk about myself ("egotistical teenager," I know), but in general I've suffered a lot of anxiety from being overly-cognisent of things. I went through a phase during which everything I chose everything I ate purely based on how good it was for me and if it made complete protein/nutrients. I vividly remember having no sense of what I actually wanted or thought would taste yummy, because nothing was desirable if it wasn't healthy. Those foods scared me too much. I never ate dessert (unless you count plain yogurt with honey and hemp protein). I was only concerned with "what I needed/what would make me healthiest." It was very matter of fact to me: why doesn't everyone just eat like this? Why don't people always do what is probably best for them?

I've relaxed a lot since then. I realized that there are plenty of healthy, attractive people out there eating cake everyday and not dying. Perhaps I can adapt this metaphor to other controllable scenarios in life.

For example, I really am working on finding a balance between maximizing and satisficing with school and school work. Perhaps other college students-- particularly those Bryn Mawr women who are so eager to make a meaningful contribution to the world-- are in the same boat. I am not sure how I feel about having a choice in what I learn or what I academically produce. I mean, it's great because I can choose what I am interested in-- but then I realize some people don't do that at all. Some people choose based on what will make them "most successful." When I realize this, my maximizer kicks in. My satisfizer instinct protests: Isn't there supposed to be some kind of inherent talent or interest that guides every individual to do what is right for him/her? Or is school an area in which one can choose? Of course, these two questions lead to more (time consuming) questions: how hard and for how long should I think about what is "optimal" to do? By whose standard am I deciding what is "optimal"? Will I do better in a class if I spend a lot of time really, really thinking about one reading or if I decide to quickly read all five of the reading assignments? Is it best to take pre-law or pre-med requirements "just incase", even if I'm not sure that is where my interests lie? Should I spend the whole of Saturday getting ahead in my work, or rebooting? How often do I need to "reboot"? Is procrastinating ever acceptable?

I forget I am human sometimes, but sometimes being human isn't good enough for the standards I set. I know I am ultimately always going to be a very happy, observant person who can drop everything for a day and just go for a walk and enjoy what I see-- but it is almost because of that that I want to push myself harder. 

Now I am left with the choice of whether to be a maximizer or a satisficer in school (in life). Great.

Question: are there people out there who cannot/do not experience serendipity? Does one need both extremes (serendipity and intense control) do find balance between the two, or do some people just not feel either extreme and stay somewhere in the middle?