I never said I wasn't both, I am. But I don't think you need to be both; and yes, that's what I meant by mutually exclusive. One is not contingent on the other.
I think they more often present together than not, and I'm not so sure that when you use the two terms in a global sense that they are mutually exclusive. I do have friends who are way more laid back than Type A me who do strive for excellence in some areas, but, speaking from a clinical viewpoint, "overachiever" has been typically used to describe a personality type as a whole, not someone who does excel or have very high standards say, at work, for example, yet approaches personal/leisure pursuits in a more laid back manner. These labels are all very general, so in the general sense, no, I don't know too many Type B's who are "overachievers" if you use the general description. This isn't to say they are lazy, or underachieving, just that success, perfection and pushing themselves to the max is not always their main focus or what drives them forward all the time.
I myself am trying to shed some of my Type A persona because I am tired of it and as I get older, I don't view it as the optimum way for me personally to continue to live my life. It's too much black-and-white thinking for me at this stage. Does that make me an underachiever-in-training? No, I don't think so. It just means I want a more balanced existence than I have lived the first 30+ years of my life. To each his/her own, I say whatever works for an individual the best is what they should strive to be. :)
I think they more often present together than not, and I'm not so sure that when you use the two terms in a global sense that they are mutually exclusive. I do have friends who are way more laid back than Type A me who do strive for excellence in some areas, but, speaking from a clinical viewpoint, "overachiever" has been typically used to describe a personality type as a whole, not someone who does excel or have very high standards say, at work, for example, yet approaches personal/leisure pursuits in a more laid back manner. These labels are all very general, so in the general sense, no, I don't know too many Type B's who are "overachievers" if you use the general description. This isn't to say they are lazy, or underachieving, just that success, perfection and pushing themselves to the max is not always their main focus or what drives them forward all the time.
I myself am trying to shed some of my Type A persona because I am tired of it and as I get older, I don't view it as the optimum way for me personally to continue to live my life. It's too much black-and-white thinking for me at this stage. Does that make me an underachiever-in-training? No, I don't think so. It just means I want a more balanced existence than I have lived the first 30+ years of my life. To each his/her own, I say whatever works for an individual the best is what they should strive to be. :)
Loading...
I never said I wasn't both, I am.
Really?
But I don't think you need to be both; and yes, that's what I meant by mutually exclusive. One is not contingent on the other.
So then, I not only understood you but agreed with you? :D
It's turning out to be a doozy of a topic. BZ, 'Kid.
(editted to say: Sometimes you can't hit STOP fast enough...sorry.)
Loading...
I'd say i am a lot like Robp, did very well on standardized testing even considered "academically talented" However my school grades did not reflect it except for those classes that interested me.
I can't say i am an over acheiver by any means. i am happy with getting by in MOST things. NOW THAT BEING said. i do believe that what one sets out to do, it should be done to the best of an ability. I chose to be an athlete, i did not choose to go to school. also i feel it is in general for what one has an interest in that they want it to be done well.
I can't say i am an over acheiver by any means. i am happy with getting by in MOST things. NOW THAT BEING said. i do believe that what one sets out to do, it should be done to the best of an ability. I chose to be an athlete, i did not choose to go to school. also i feel it is in general for what one has an interest in that they want it to be done well.
Loading...
Academic success/talent has nothing to do with whether or not you are an overachiever. A high IQ or natural ability for scholastics simply says that a person is capable of higher level things - it is no guarantee that a person will strive for those higher level things, just as a lower IQ doesn't mean that a person will not do great things or be unsuccessful. You can be a smart slacker, or a not-as-smart overachiever. Einstein did very poorly in school - he had great academic ability and aptitude, but his interest in matching it scholastically was sub par. P. Diddy isn't too book smart, and while I don't like him personally, I have to respect his ability to come from such humble beginnings and become so successful based on his tireless overachiever work ethic.
Continue to discuss.
Continue to discuss.
Loading...
Excellent point, Genie.
I know an individual just like you. Early in his career as a firefighter, he was a ball o' fire. To use a wine analogy, he was a young, robust, strong-in-tannin cabernet. Those tannins allowed him to go on at that pace for a long time but now? He's mellowed and extremely drinkable...most agreeable. It was his aging. He, too, became tired of it as he got older. He's enjoying life.
I know an individual just like you. Early in his career as a firefighter, he was a ball o' fire. To use a wine analogy, he was a young, robust, strong-in-tannin cabernet. Those tannins allowed him to go on at that pace for a long time but now? He's mellowed and extremely drinkable...most agreeable. It was his aging. He, too, became tired of it as he got older. He's enjoying life.
Loading...