#other-centeredness

This posting is an opportunity to give David Brooks the stage.  It does so by offering two quotes from his book, The Second Mountain,[1] in which he makes a meaningful distinction.  In sharing his words, it might sound as if he is diminishing a central element of an ideal person.  That is, that that person should have character.  The opinion he expresses is, as with all human qualities, that none of them indicate perfection or enjoy an unqualified standing within one’s estimations.  Life is not that simple.  So, what does Brooks have to say about the human quality of character?  

          Here is the first quote:

When I wrote The Road to Character [published in 2015], I was still enclosed in the prison of individualism.  I believed that life is going best when we take individual agency, when we grab the wheel and steer our own ship.  I still believed that character is something you build mostly on your own.  You identify your core sin and then, mustering all your willpower, you make yourself strong in your weakest places.[2]

In the few years that have transpired from this earlier mode of thinking, Brooks apparently has gone through a transformation of sorts.  And in doing so, he has not only experienced a change of heart, but also a change of understanding what life can be or should be.  No, he didn’t abandon the importance of character, but perhaps, one can say, augmented what it means to him and how it functions for him in determining what he should be about.

          In a few lines following the above quote, Brooks adds:

I now think good character is a by-product of giving yourself away.  You love things that are worthy of love.  You surrender to a community or cause, make promises to other people, build a thick jungle of loving attachments, lose yourself in the daily act of serving others as they lose themselves in the daily acts of serving you.  Character is a good thing to have, and there’s a lot to be learned on the road to character.  But there’s a better thing to have – moral joy.  And that serenity arrives as you come closer to embodying perfect love.[3]

In this blogger’s opinion, Brooks makes important definitional points.  One is that character is complex and comprises various attributes.  Some of them, if seen from an individualistic perspective, home in on what one can and should do irrespective of social conditions.  It gives one an air or burden of ascending above how those around one are doing.  That is, irrespective of the travails one observes, one should act according to principle and not merely respond to the daily challenges one encounters. 

And yes, there is that element of character, but it is not an unqualified attribute of goodness that Brooks previously ascribed to it.  Character also, and this is Brooks’ second point, is subordinate to moral obligations he terms “joys.”  And usually that means being concerned and motivated to see how others are faring in relation to what concerns them.  Here Brooks writes of “surrendering” to those demands and describing what important role one’s culture plays in disposing oneself to such thinking and feeling.

          Of course, as this blog argues, a culture ensconced in individualism, such as how the American culture holds as prominent the natural rights view, reaching or even recognizing Brooks’ “second mountain” – this surrender to an other-centered disposition – seems unlikely to take hold.  Hopefully, efforts such as Brooks’ book – and even, to some degree, this blog – can make a difference in people approaching and even climbing that “second” communal “mountain.”

[1] David Brooks, The Second Mountain:  The Quest for a Moral Life (New York, NY:  Random House).

[2] Ibid, xix.

Santa Tracker’s Unexpected Phone Call

  http://mentalfloss.com/article/32021/why-did-norad-start-tracking-santa

The story is all over the net.  I simply wanted to express my a) appreciation for this story, and b) desire to see this story passed on through the generations.  One man made a choice to think beyond himself, beyond his world, and to respond with a prolific, uncommon, creative, action.  Here is an oversimplified glimpse of…

The ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve.

- Albert Schweitzer 

(From the cap of a delicious bottle of Honest Tea)

After meeting with the College of Medicine Dean of Admissions on Monday (and no doubt leaving a bad impression after being overly stiff in an attempt to not break down in tears), I was informed that I failed to efficiently communicate my "other-centeredness" during my interview. That, and I didn't do a good job vocalizing why I want to be a doctor (though my personal statement provided an adequate explanation). 

In other words, I failed miserably.

(Apparently, I was given above average marks for all other categories but what could those categories possibly have been!?)

The silver lining is now I know what I need to improve on for next year and I think I want to start by addressing both of those issues right here, right now. 

"Other-centeredness refers to a multidimensional area which includes the degree to which one understands the meaning of, places value in, acts, and is judged by others to act in a manner in which shows consideration for other people." (1)

After performing a quick Google search, that was the best definition of other-centeredness that I could find ('best' in that it was the most straight-forward and least philosophical definition). Being told that I did not come across as other-centered really hurt because it is a quality I highly value and would like to think I demonstrate in everyday life. Not to sound self-centered, but I dare to say those who know me well would describe me as other-centered based on the aforementioned definition.

Other-centeredness is obviously very important for a career in medicine because physicians essentially dedicate their lives to serving and helping others. Excuse my naiveté but it never occurred to me that I needed to explicitly state "I like to help other people" in a medical school interview in order for the interviewer to percieve it as being true. In my opinion, this is one of those situations where actions speak volumes over words and to be quite honest, saying it aloud cheapens the sentiment. How so? Well, if there is something you do everyday and think of as a normal part of being a human, do you consciously think about it? I don't go around consciously thinking about breathing so if someone asked me to tell them about myself, I would never mention the fact that I breathe... or blink, or sleep. This is obviously an exaggerated example but I think it gets my point across. Saying it out loud would actually be worrisome because it would make it seem like it's unusual for the individual and he/she really wants to convince you it's true. 

As someone whose life goal is to become a physician and has continuously volunteered with a hospice or in a hospital since high school, I assumed my desire to help others was evident. Of course, those are not even the best examples because I could have done them solely in an attempt to convince others of my alleged altruism. Altruism is defined as "behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind". I used to be a huge skeptic of altruism because I felt that as humans, our unconscious instinct is always selfishness as a mechanism for survival and self-preservation. Anything and everything eventually boils down to self-gain. Why do people donate to charity? Because they want to feel better about themselves and potentially raise the standard of living of those around them so that property values go up. That is a terrible way to think but perhaps I have only started believing in altruism because I would like to think that when I agree to help someone (even at my own inconvenience), it is because helping others is the right thing to do? I don't know but I think that discussion would get to be very philosophical and very long. 

In this day and age where volunteering has become a requirement for scholarships and admission into graduate schools, it has really lost its meaningfulness. Is it really volunteering if you're forced strongly encouraged to do it? How are medical schools supposed determine who is genuinely interested in helping others and who begrudgingly completed the requirements just to become a doctor and start cashing in their hefty paychecks? 

As they say, character is what you do when no one is watching. During the hour-long interview, it is impossible for the interviewer to determine my character and how I live my life, so in the end, it really is my own fault for failing to communicate my desire to help others. I will do better next time. 

Why do you want to become a doctor?

-Everyone

That is a question I have been mulling over for a very long time, especially when I started the application process. I think the answer is multi-faceted and very complex but it boils down to the fact that I want to help people (and that my friends, is why it would have been nice if the interviewers had percieved me as other-centered) and I enjoy overcoming new challenges. 

I am not going to pretend that my desire to help other people is completely unselfish, of course I stand to gain something! For one, I really like helping other people because it makes me happy when I make others happy (this is most likely why I always go a little overboard during the holidays and buy gifts that are just a little too extravagant). Secondly, I cannot say no to someone who asks for my help because disappointing someone is the worst feeling in the world, even worse than being hated! Finally, I get a sense of achievement and satisfaction when I am able to lend my abilities towards helping someone who needs my help. (So going back to my argument about altruism, is it really altruism if I agree to help someone at my own inconvenience even though I stand to gain satisfaction?)

As I said in my previous blog post, I live for the thrill of overcoming a challenge. Medicine is one of those professions that is so fluid and constantly progressing. My worst fear is being stuck in a stagnant profession where I do the exact same mundane thing day in and day out. Applying my previously gained knowledge towards solving a conundrum or discovering something new makes me feel so clever and so fulfilled. This is the reason why I love learning new things about a variety of topics. Every time I expand my knowledge bank, I am increasing my chances of being able to apply my knowledge. 

So I guess the best way of comprehensively explaining my interest in becoming a physician in one concise line is: I enjoy solving complex problems for those who need my help the most. 

People who are sick are going through the scariest times of their lives and I want to be the person they turn to because I have the ability to treat and cure them. Medicine combines problem solving with a humanistic aspect that makes it so much more appealing to me than other science-based health professions such as biomedical research, pharmacy, or nursing. That, and I like to be the one calling the shots! 

Every creator painfully experiences the chasm between his inner vision and its ultimate expression. The chasm is never completely bridged. We all have the conviction, perhaps illusory, that we have much more to say than appears on the paper. 

-Isaac Bashevis Singer

This ended up being a lot longer than I intended, but it feels nice to get some of my thoughts down in words. Some things just make sense in your mind until you go to write it down or say it out loud and it becomes a disorganized mess. I think this is pretty close to what I wanted to express. Everything in life is a learning experience and now I can reference this post when the time comes for more interviews.