Actually I have to say when I sit down and think out problems in terms of working solutions. I tend to work best in a very quiet non distracted space, but this sort of discrimination goes beyond say persons in it. It is, for instance, one in which I tend to like distractions like television off, and generally uninterrupted in terms of pace and flow. I like to break probably a fair amount, or when I am 'zoning' cranking out algorithms, and sometimes moderating output where I am not working as heavily on one given day relative another.
I think of the other types of potential social work environments where some, perhaps, arguably like to be in a 'go to a given destination' sit down at a desk environment, but I actually like a bit of relaxation and recline when working. That is, not necessarily sitting in accordingly the best 'ergonomic' posturing. At that, if it isn't regarding the manner of time spent, scanning news or getting to distracted by ongoing social events in the world. I imagine some work environments may be similar. Some researchers actually like to surround themselves, as I have read, by a degree of seeming 'entropy' and disorder, for instance, stacking books up all around them presumably for some sort of creative ideas reference which maybe wouldn't fly in other types of social environments where a certain 'ordered' desk cleanliness might be expected.
It really varies and depends I imagine with respect to the personality type on the matter of what they tend to prefer and not prefer. Although in defense of others in such environment, expectancy shouldn't be fully compromising in that others generally find intolerable the social conditions in working say, for instance, in a lab where personal conduct is expected at some fundamental level to be equitable enough so that people can at least work more likely side by side and not having such compromise given to one person's demands exclusive of everyone else in such environment. That is a point of fairness to say the least, or it seems one might be bettered suited to other social work environments.
Social work environments, not that they aren't problematic, may also demand certain types of hygienic and orderly flow that doesn't exist in others. For instance, a laboratory setting may not function as well if it were less orderly and more chaotic, or if one were inclined to certain discipline of research that were in conflict to social habits, at least theoretic disciplines may be a better pursuit? I do go so far to say where discipline and social expectations may be a bit over reaching may apply in so far as specific cases in the laboratory setting that may not be applicable outside it. On the other hand, if general conduct appears to be generally demonstrated in decent order, I would be reticent to draw as much judgement for body work or contributions. This is to say discounting end contribution because of certain personal proclivities shouldn't be the basis of judging work. In the end, when it comes to the acceptance to given work, its really the contribution that matters. This sort of raises a personal concern of mine especially so when it means that anyone should be potentially find science work less desirable because of the conditions of the social environment that exists. This applies equally true to gender inequalities that exist in the workplace as much if at the outset social discrimination have turned out biases in so far as the distributions of those of one gender relative the other. It is also true that there are a lot of conformed expectations likely drawn with respect to the types of personalities that are picked up and drawn into a given work environment. For instance, making all the hurdles to reach higher academic levels, I imagine, are already in place that discriminate people for all sorts of sets of performance related biases as well as given potentially to the types of socially normative conditions that people might work....if this weren't more obvious that academic performance should be likely in some respects cultured by the very social setting that people are often raised. Children are pitted against their peers, and at times if at times it isn't true relative to others competitive social environments promote 'winners' in obvious chord to resonating competitive based learning systems. Hard marks for losers, on the other hand, speak of the likely the role and facility of expectations potentially drawn. In essence, this runs at the fundamental heart of societal stratification where prisoners seemingly move in and out of a revolving door, and intrinsically find it hard to break away from the clutches of recidivism. Of course, political speak often chords to the contrary of 'freedom' in opportunity, but it seems likely a sociological study on these matters strike another chord to the notions of self esteem and self worth in that picture. Successful individuals are likely to have sustaining infrastructure and social networks aiding in their success while those that don't have these same social networks are less likely to find alternate paths. To this degree, in one study, children that were told they were not likely to be successful were less likely to be successful as a matter of social reinforcement, and that exceptional patterns of social defiance to being told of one's condition were exceptional not the norm. If it is true that children are characterized by being told that their role in life is consigned to a particular culturally biased and gender biased position, they, any role in genetics aside, were more likely also to live up to such roles via social conditioning. It seems if women are likely in a modern role of distraction, are that they may be as likely given and conditioned to the roles of desirability, not that this shouldn't be equally true of men likewise, but this speaks, perhaps, of just an inkling of why gender biases exist in such world. If we are likely to appreciate and give room, on the other hand, to other males in the world where it is such that valuation is still given, as it may have been popularized, in roles to the extent of defining of a whole other appreciable personality social class, on the other hand, it seems the male image could be strikingly predominant in some respects to an emerging tolerance given. On the other hand, maybe it is still so that others in society are still expected to conform as in the notion of 'having it all', professional career, family, and some level of personal physical and social desirability, or where at the heart of discrimination, evidence for discrimination might be found all around us. That is, neither conforming in essence to typified physical attributes, manner of personality, might be the basis for 'not getting hired' and potentially not succeeding with respect to vertical occupational mobility.
At the upper echelons of academics, it seems where others have succeeded, jumping through any manner of hurdles in getting to a given position, there is likely all the biases, and likely quirks of personality given in doing so....I've read in some description that some might have sought owing to any number of stresses resort through alcohol, drug use, sleep disorder, or anything else applicable to all the measures put forth. I am not certain if this also a testament to the at times social hazard which speaks of yet another potential reason why some may find less desirable the types of social stress that should exist where it does in performing up to certain metric levels. Pursuing the path of least resistance may be likely for most other, and maybe some gender cultural biases in terms of raised personality types speaks of why imbalances exist as they do, and I wonder how many academic institutions make it something of a priority to aid in the management of schooling to the extent of reducing potential stress, or if it isn't something of inherent gender bias all along that faithfully believes in the success of its institutions by conformed cultural notions? This is pretty much at the heart of our competitive male oriented society at the upper echelons.
No comments:
Post a Comment