Strange findings...

Yesterday i read a study book of social psychology and found some new information that amazed me. It was about self-awareness, introspection, self-monitoring etc..

"Consistantly, as we have seen, people preserve their self-esteem by deluding themselves and others with biased cognitions, self-handicapping, basking in the glory of others, and making downward comparisons. Are these strategies a sign of health and well-being, or are they syptoms of disorder? "

"... individuals who are depressed or low in self-esteem actually have more realistic views of themselves than do most others who are better adjusted. Their self-appraisals are more likely to match appraisals of them made by neutral observers; they make fewer self-serving attributions to account for success and failure; they are less likely to exaggerate their control over uncontrollable events; and they make more balanced predictions about their future. They are also more likely to compare themselves with similar others rather than make downward comparisons. Based on these results, Taylor and Brown reached the provocative conclusion that positive illusions promote happiness, the desire to care for others, and the ability to engage in productive work - hallmark attributes of mental health: "These illusions help make each individual`s word a warmer and more active and beneficent place in which to live"."

Hmm.. what the hell?

Okay.. maybe it really works like that but i really dont want to live in illusions - whether they are positive or negative.

An other question is if it is possible to live without any illusions. We might break some illusions but maybe it is impossible to break all of them. Some of them might maintain even without knowing it.

Let imagine that life consists of a lot of illusions.. must we then maintain these illusions and try to live according to them?

Anyway i dont believe that living according to illusions is a right way.

Specialist or generalist?

I used to think that being generalist is better than specialist. I didnt want to be in some field absolutely not competent.. i prefered atleast some minimum competence. Now i see that it is quite impossible to have this minimum competence in every field (there isnt enough energy for everything). And actually what for if there is always a person who is specialist in this field. Yes.. i wanted it for myself.. to understand things better.. for not asking every little question if i can do it myself. Still generalization is also good because you see things better if you see it from different perspectives. And creativity - it happens when different fields integrate.

So it is important to find balance between specialization and generalization. And spezialization is even a little bit more important.

I have worked a lot with my weaknesses. It seemed to me really important to overcome my weak sides (as i wanted to be generalist - so it was essential to develop my weaknesses). Recently i found an article and it made me think.

"Individuals can choose to work on weaknesses, which, we believe, can produce only small incremental levels of growth. Or they can spend equal amounts of time, hard work, and discipline developing strengths and, as a result, experience significant growth. "

So - i have to focus on my strenghts and start to work on something certain. I need to find my specialization. But i feel that every choice sets me limits. If i choose something then it means that i cant choose other things and i will have only this one thing. What if i get bored of this one thing? I love diversity. But still - i have to choose this one thing that will be the most important. And if i cant otherwise - then there will be some less important things also.

"Extraordinary individuals are distinguished less by their impressive "raw power" then by their ability to identify their strenghts and then to exploit them."

"Successful individuals identify in themselves some reoccurring patterns into genuine and productive strenghts."