Procrastination has been a huge part of my life when it comes to school. If it's a project, paper, studying, or just a worksheet, I will leave it until Sunday night. I know that isn't the best thing to do, but hey, a lot of other people do it too! When the new school year comes around, I literally say to myself, "I'm not going to procrastinate this year; I'm going to do a little bit of work each night." That never happened, and this year I am okay with it for the reason that procrastination actually works for me, and I just realized that this year.
The reason I hold off with work until Sunday is because I cannot keep attention to it if it's any day before. Call it a minor form of ADD?, but I find little excuses for myself not to do work, whether it's, "I'm hungry," to "I need to pet my dog." Tons of people say to go in a quiet room with no distractions, however the distractions are in my head most of the time. I start to think of different things to do and my mind drifts away. I try to overcome this bad habit, but I fail most of the time. But, is this habit "bad" for me personally?
When it comes to Sunday night, I usually do all of my homework without a problem. The reason is that I know I am on a limited time limit now so I have tonight or no other night to do homework. This puts pressure on me, sometimes a lot, however this pressure and sometimes stress forces me to focus. I've talked to some other people at school and they tell me they have the same ideals: that they work better under pressure. I know I'm not alone with this weird mind-set, but I also know not everyone can pull this off.
Parents and teachers frown upon this because they say the quality of work decreases because of the lessened time. However, this is never a big problem for me, even if I have to write a 300+ page paper that night. Maybe I don't have time to over-analyze myself. Even though this works to an extent, this 'system' is horrible for studying. I need time to study thoroughly, and for my Accounting Exam tomorrow, I only have about 3 hours to study (and not all of that time I will be studying.) I don't think I can ever change this study format easily because it's part of the way I've been thinking for about 10 years. Even though people see procrastinating bad, I think the pressure helps me.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Prejudging Sometimes Works, Sometimes Not
Haven't you heard of the saying, "You can tell what a person is like by looking at their friends." In a sense, I think that is a true statement. So I could know what a person is like without even meeting them. Friends are friends partly because they like the same things you do; you have common interests. If my friends like rap, you can assume that I listen to rap. If my friends are football players, you can assume that I am one as well.
The reason I bring this up is because I unfortunately do this sometimes when I'm trying to find out the personality of someone. I say 'unfortunately' because I am assuming, and of course I can be wrong (from personal experience). When I was in high school, I had some friends that did drugs, smoked, and partied a lot. Even though we had common interests, I would never think of doing drugs or any other illegal things they did. However, some people who didn't know me connected me to them and thought I was a "rebel" like them. Hmmm, kind of unfair, don't you think?
Prejudging people by not actually talking to them, or doing types of Secondary Research, can give incorrect info. sometimes even though tons of people prejudge every day, even myself. Another saying I heard on the radio is that you can tell who a person is by what's in their car. If somebody creeped in my car, they'd see a pillow and a blanket. What? Is this guy homeless and sleeps in his car? No, my mom put them in my car in case I crashed in the harsh winter weather. However, there is a bike helmet and a tennis racket in there, which would in fact help someone find out what I like. So these sayings do, in fact, sometimes work!
During these days of immaturity among high schoolers and even some college students, we all can connect with what I am saying. By looking at people's friends, car, or even their clothes to see "who they are", we can gather information, but all of it would be assumptions. Even though your assumptions can be fairly accurate, some of them might be wrong which is not fair to the person you're analyzing. As said before, I am guilty of "assuming" a lot. I think people do this a lot if they don't want to talk to the person because of shyness, arrogance, or another reason. Thinking a little harder of why I personally do it... well I don't know why I do it. It's hard to explain. Maybe it's an innate teenager action that we all do. Who knows?
The reason I bring this up is because I unfortunately do this sometimes when I'm trying to find out the personality of someone. I say 'unfortunately' because I am assuming, and of course I can be wrong (from personal experience). When I was in high school, I had some friends that did drugs, smoked, and partied a lot. Even though we had common interests, I would never think of doing drugs or any other illegal things they did. However, some people who didn't know me connected me to them and thought I was a "rebel" like them. Hmmm, kind of unfair, don't you think?
Prejudging people by not actually talking to them, or doing types of Secondary Research, can give incorrect info. sometimes even though tons of people prejudge every day, even myself. Another saying I heard on the radio is that you can tell who a person is by what's in their car. If somebody creeped in my car, they'd see a pillow and a blanket. What? Is this guy homeless and sleeps in his car? No, my mom put them in my car in case I crashed in the harsh winter weather. However, there is a bike helmet and a tennis racket in there, which would in fact help someone find out what I like. So these sayings do, in fact, sometimes work!
During these days of immaturity among high schoolers and even some college students, we all can connect with what I am saying. By looking at people's friends, car, or even their clothes to see "who they are", we can gather information, but all of it would be assumptions. Even though your assumptions can be fairly accurate, some of them might be wrong which is not fair to the person you're analyzing. As said before, I am guilty of "assuming" a lot. I think people do this a lot if they don't want to talk to the person because of shyness, arrogance, or another reason. Thinking a little harder of why I personally do it... well I don't know why I do it. It's hard to explain. Maybe it's an innate teenager action that we all do. Who knows?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Strategy vs. Power
Risk is board game I recently played with some friends that vaguely represents a war and domination over parts of the world and these empires battling against each other to gain more land. I saw that the person who won had a technique of improving his army in only one of his "sections" rather than expanding his empire across the world. I knew, in this "Brains vs. Brawn" game, that brains had a better chance of winning because obviously, in my case, my Brawn technique of spreading my empire across the world didn't work because my focus wasn't mostly on my plan, only my expansion. I know this a horrible example of a real war because you can both expand and plan in reality, but I wondered which was more important in a war for success in real life, Brains vs. Brawn.
Although I know both having a big army and having a strategic "game plan" are both equally important, I wondered if one had more importance than the other. In the 2007 film, 300, it depicted 300 Greeks holding off more than 1 million invading Persians. Despite defeat, the Spartans used their knowledge of terrain and other tactics, like a corpse-made wall, to hold off the massive army.
Joseph Stalin also thought that ideas were more powerful than guns. This influential leader said, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Good education can definitely win a battle through stratigraphical warfare to even the odds of being outnumbered. Planning attacks can have an advantage to exploit weaknesses, use geographic, biological, political, or any other type of advances to get the needed edge. However, can a huge army still overtake any plan a smaller one has?
Alexander the Great was known to have one of the largest empires in history, taking southern Europe, or most of Asia Minor, as his own. Even the United Kingdom's empire wanted to expand to the newly founded North America in the 1600's. Point being, many popular empires sought out the meaning, "bigger is better". Some obvious advantages come with a huge empire and/or army. The more you have, the more you can send out to attack.
In my opinion, strategical planning can counteract an army with massive amounts of soldiers because having smart moves can "pick off" a big army piece by piece. However, this is like comparing speed and power in a boxing match. Both can overcome if given the chance. Even though this argument might be biased towards many factors and situations in a given war, Brains outweighs Brawn in my opinion. On the other hand, maybe we can never compare these two interpretations because they might be equally important.
Although I know both having a big army and having a strategic "game plan" are both equally important, I wondered if one had more importance than the other. In the 2007 film, 300, it depicted 300 Greeks holding off more than 1 million invading Persians. Despite defeat, the Spartans used their knowledge of terrain and other tactics, like a corpse-made wall, to hold off the massive army.
Joseph Stalin also thought that ideas were more powerful than guns. This influential leader said, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Good education can definitely win a battle through stratigraphical warfare to even the odds of being outnumbered. Planning attacks can have an advantage to exploit weaknesses, use geographic, biological, political, or any other type of advances to get the needed edge. However, can a huge army still overtake any plan a smaller one has?
Alexander the Great was known to have one of the largest empires in history, taking southern Europe, or most of Asia Minor, as his own. Even the United Kingdom's empire wanted to expand to the newly founded North America in the 1600's. Point being, many popular empires sought out the meaning, "bigger is better". Some obvious advantages come with a huge empire and/or army. The more you have, the more you can send out to attack.
In my opinion, strategical planning can counteract an army with massive amounts of soldiers because having smart moves can "pick off" a big army piece by piece. However, this is like comparing speed and power in a boxing match. Both can overcome if given the chance. Even though this argument might be biased towards many factors and situations in a given war, Brains outweighs Brawn in my opinion. On the other hand, maybe we can never compare these two interpretations because they might be equally important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
