Lawyers vs. Doctors
This one's a little different. It doesn't directly have to do with any aspiring medical students. It's just an interesting commentary that popped into my head.
I present to you 2 people with 2 points of view and 2 diametrically opposing philosophies on life:
Philosophy A: "In a relationship, you have to live for yourself first. If you can't take care of yourself you'll never be able to live for anyone else, whomever they are."
Philosophy B: "In a relationship, people should live life for the person they're with. If both people do the same, they'll propel each other, feed off the energy of each other, and both exceed in life."
They are 2 completely opposite views on life and they are 2 that ideas came up in a conversation that I had with someone over 7 years ago. We both felt very strongly. It's odd that I remember that conversation very well and I now analyze them both years later.
Person A went on to graduate from UC Berkeley and I believe currently attends Law School in New York where she'll be graduating this year or the next in 2009. I could be wrong on the graduating year. We don't really keep in touch. Person B is me.
Now to dig a little deeper and go back to the philosophies:
As opposing views, ideally they would each take up 50% of the "Philosophy Pie." Ideally, they would. But years later I'm convinced that they don't. In reality I don't think it works that way at all. I think my school of thought gets the short end of the stick on this one. So-much-so that I'd even say that it's closer to 75% A and 25% B. And with that, I still might be too generous to Group B.
Group A is the group of realists. The world doesn't work out that neatly. In a lot of ways the world isn't pretty. And you really do have to look out for yourself first.
Group B is the group of wide-eyed idealists who think they can change the world through human behavior all at once. Group B is the group of over thinkers and dreamers.
Now apply these ideas into a few hypothetical real life scenarios:
If I ever got into some legal trouble and needed a lawyer, I would expect and hope they would fall into Group A. Now I'm not especially versed in Law in general... but in a Court of Law it's all about you. You better be looking out for yourself and yourself alone because you know what? No one else is. The lines are drawn so stringently and the teams are so clearly defined -- you had better hope your lawyer is looking out for you and you alone.
Then again...
If I stepped into a doctor's office I would expect and hope they would fall into Group B. I think Philosophy B is full of qualities that I want in my purchase cialis. I think the mentality of "others first" an important -- if not 'the most important' -- quality a cialis can have. Beyond the philosophical debate, I believe the type of mentality your doctor has can dramatically effect the level of health care they are providing you on a personal level. In a medical or trauma emergency there are no teams and there are no lines drawn on the battlefield.
My point? A few points.
The irony of it all. The truth of it all. And I'm not really giving any answers. I'm just posing the question to you:
Given the choice between the two, which group do you fall in with?
Sunday Poll Results: A 100 kg man stands on the left end of a 100 kg board 2 m long which sits on a frictionless surface. Where will the left end of the board come to rest if the man walks to the right end of the board and stops?
2 m behind the man's starting [75%]
1 m behind the man's starting point.[25%]
At the man's starting point. [0%]
2 m ahead of the man's starting point. [0%]
Note: 75% of the people who answered the poll got the question wrong. I got this question straight from the Princeton Review Practice Test. The key word is "frictionless." You might as well almost think of it as a vacuum. The effort you're exerting to walk 2 meters is split between moving yourself 1 meter to the right and moving the board 1 meter to the left.
The correct answer is: 1 m behind the man's starting point.
I present to you 2 people with 2 points of view and 2 diametrically opposing philosophies on life:
Philosophy A: "In a relationship, you have to live for yourself first. If you can't take care of yourself you'll never be able to live for anyone else, whomever they are."
Philosophy B: "In a relationship, people should live life for the person they're with. If both people do the same, they'll propel each other, feed off the energy of each other, and both exceed in life."
They are 2 completely opposite views on life and they are 2 that ideas came up in a conversation that I had with someone over 7 years ago. We both felt very strongly. It's odd that I remember that conversation very well and I now analyze them both years later.
Person A went on to graduate from UC Berkeley and I believe currently attends Law School in New York where she'll be graduating this year or the next in 2009. I could be wrong on the graduating year. We don't really keep in touch. Person B is me.
Now to dig a little deeper and go back to the philosophies:
As opposing views, ideally they would each take up 50% of the "Philosophy Pie." Ideally, they would. But years later I'm convinced that they don't. In reality I don't think it works that way at all. I think my school of thought gets the short end of the stick on this one. So-much-so that I'd even say that it's closer to 75% A and 25% B. And with that, I still might be too generous to Group B.
Group A is the group of realists. The world doesn't work out that neatly. In a lot of ways the world isn't pretty. And you really do have to look out for yourself first.
Group B is the group of wide-eyed idealists who think they can change the world through human behavior all at once. Group B is the group of over thinkers and dreamers.
Now apply these ideas into a few hypothetical real life scenarios:
If I ever got into some legal trouble and needed a lawyer, I would expect and hope they would fall into Group A. Now I'm not especially versed in Law in general... but in a Court of Law it's all about you. You better be looking out for yourself and yourself alone because you know what? No one else is. The lines are drawn so stringently and the teams are so clearly defined -- you had better hope your lawyer is looking out for you and you alone.
Then again...
If I stepped into a doctor's office I would expect and hope they would fall into Group B. I think Philosophy B is full of qualities that I want in my purchase cialis. I think the mentality of "others first" an important -- if not 'the most important' -- quality a cialis can have. Beyond the philosophical debate, I believe the type of mentality your doctor has can dramatically effect the level of health care they are providing you on a personal level. In a medical or trauma emergency there are no teams and there are no lines drawn on the battlefield.
My point? A few points.
The irony of it all. The truth of it all. And I'm not really giving any answers. I'm just posing the question to you:
Given the choice between the two, which group do you fall in with?
Sunday Poll Results: A 100 kg man stands on the left end of a 100 kg board 2 m long which sits on a frictionless surface. Where will the left end of the board come to rest if the man walks to the right end of the board and stops?
2 m behind the man's starting [75%]
1 m behind the man's starting point.[25%]
At the man's starting point. [0%]
2 m ahead of the man's starting point. [0%]
Note: 75% of the people who answered the poll got the question wrong. I got this question straight from the Princeton Review Practice Test. The key word is "frictionless." You might as well almost think of it as a vacuum. The effort you're exerting to walk 2 meters is split between moving yourself 1 meter to the right and moving the board 1 meter to the left.
The correct answer is: 1 m behind the man's starting point.