I should be studying.
Coffee. First few sips of hot coffee, I’m alert, focusing on the task at hand. And I continue sipping the rest of the coffee. Soon, I realise my fingers are uncoordinated. I could be turning manic. But it’s more the case of volatile emotions. Interactions, however subtle, bother me. Then coffee may not be the best antidote. I need a solution. I can’t seem to let go of coffee. I don’t want to let go of coffee, for a few moments of glee that I don’t have an alternative for. And to control it, medicine might help. Pharmacology. I’m gonna say that non-pharmacological methods are not helpful here because one, they have not helped me, and two, I probably don’t know how to do them. We need to think of dosing. We need to titrate it. We should be scientific about it. So we need variables - type of coffee, amount of coffee, frequency of consumption, time consumed, time of high and other foods consumed with coffee. Ideally, we need to keep all but one constant, which is hard.
People are worried. Should I be worried too? They said it was formatives. I thought that meant you get to know what you are in for? How do you prepare for something when you don’t know what is expected of you? If everyone is believes the same thing, and say it is closer to truth than my version then, say they are correct, then there has to be an error in my logic.
I think we are thinking differently. If fundamentally my principle is different from others, then our versions of logic is different and would clash.
He’s not wrong. Testing is not entirely fair. It’s hard to create something completely fair. Perhaps it’s the way he conveys the message that people assume that he has no basis. Perhaps they are biased and won’t believe anything he says. Maybe people are not wrong, they just accept that they can’t change the rules of the game and simply play the game as it designed. But testing is not entirely fair. More than that, it is hard to test one skill without involving other skills. What if it’s the other skills that are differentiating “better” than the rest, especially so when the difference is so small? If other skills are the ones that makes the difference, then, after a certain point, the test is testing something else.
All this time, is it that the most hardworking has come out on top? What sort of test is that? Spend more time on a certain thing and you’ll outdo the rest. Let’s challenge that. I think the game is to do a task in front of an examiner. I’m thinking it’s rigged because from experience, different people expect different things from you - it’s common knowledge. But it’s not only a game of chance. We need to impress regardless of examiner. We need to know what the examiner wants. It’s no longer just an approach to the task but an approach to the examiner himself, which would challenge the test, for better or for worse. Objective is hard to follow. We need to impress - bigger on the outside. To fix, I have to fix myself. I need to be able to summarise in the most succinct and professional manner possible and then jump into ddx. That will be task one. Following that, I think I will be able to handle the questions, just as usual, but I have to make it more professional. Task two, mindfulness. This time, I’m going to try to focus just on the patient and then try to ask open questions before zooming in. It’s not exactly begin open and then close, but more alternating between open and close. Task three, I need to study.
There is a slight flight of ideas as I’m typing this. I’m dissociating and I’m never at one place. I’ll try to organise this, so that I can understand my trains of thoughts. Sorry if I’m incoherent and conflicted in my arguments.