When you meet someone for the first time and ask, "What do you do?" what are you really asking? "What purpose do you serve??" - "Are you a useful member of society??" - "Should I talk to you??" - "Are you worthy??" Or is it truly and simply a conversation starter? But even then, when our intent is innocent and honorable, can one help but to draw conclusions based on the answer?

Carefully consider the following responses to the question "What do you do?" and honestly gauge your instinctive reaction, paying particular attention to the mental image that comes to mind.

"I am a doctor."

"I work at McDonald's."

"I am a writer."

"I am a teacher."

"I am an actor."

"I am unemployed and homeless."

"I am President of a bank."

"I am in construction."

"I am in retail."

"I work for the government."

"I am between jobs."

"I am a police officer."

"I am a church pastor."

"I am on disability."

"I am a philanthropist."

"I am a waitress."

"I am a student."

It is easy to attach one's purpose with 'what they do', but is it accurate? Is it fair? Or is it simply a shortcut allowing us to judge and compartmentalize so we may move on with our own busy life? It is hard work to know what one does and not judge them by it. It is often hard work to even acknowledge that another may not be as we see them. These types of exercises are not new and (for me) this exercise and others like it clearly indicate the ease with which we stereotype; and its complete lack of accuracy and fairness. And anyone who claims that 'stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason' is contributing to the self-fulfilling prophecy that they become.

But what if the Bank President truly claims to be a Bank President? What if their spouse, family, and friends confirm a consistent persona / identity from work to home to social situations to even their hopes and dreams (sleeping and awake)? I have seen this, and though I cannot speak to the prevalence, from personal experience (in hindsight), it is sad. When one stereotypes oneself, we are unfair to our self and (potentially) to others by judging who we are by what we do, and by applying behaviors suitable for one realm to another.

But ... (some may ask) ... what about crossover traits? What about those characteristics suitable to both what we do and who we are? And I agree. There are some human currencies (see this post and this post) that are indeed beneficial to both. But there are also some expressions of character that are typically not suitable for a casual or first-time encounter, or for the large majority of workplace encounters. Two come immediately to mind: (1) personal spirituality, and (2) counterpart currencies described in this aforementioned post as "including fear, manipulation, disrespect, distrust, cruelty, indifference, disdain, insensitivity, avoidance, scorn, rejection, and the seven (pride, anger, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, and sloth) deadly sins." I believe these two personal expressions are not only unavoidable aspects of one's Humanity, but also critical to 'who we are'. So this means if relationship and circumstance are suitable to allow one to preach personal faith, God, or religion, they should also allow another to brag about drunken exploits, sexual conquests, and other personal excess. Both personal spirituality and counterpart currencies are statements of character that some (including myself) consider private, (at least partially) due to their esoteric nature. Some may argue this point, (especially in the case of personal spirituality), but remember that I am saying these personal expressions are typically not suitable for a casual or first-time encounter, or for the large majority of workplace encounters; the flip side being that they are encouraged as relationships develop and grow, and (I believe) they are mandatory for personal encounters with oneself. Yet still, if we become so wrapped up in what we do, we may disregard these other critical aspects and we may forget who we are.

It is obvious (to me) that I should differentiate between what I do and who I am, though what I do will always have some impact on who I am, and in ideal circumstances who I am should also impact what I do. What is not so obvious is how to avoid superficially judging others. Perhaps "What do you do?" is not the best question for a casual encounter. Yet "What purpose do you serve?" which is the least confrontational of the other questions presented in the first paragraph, is still confrontational. Some other questions that come to mind (such as "what do you hope to accomplish in your time allotted here on Earth?") are probably too deep and invasive for these casual / first-time encounters and most workplace encounters.

So here are some alternatives in the form of 3 'Perhaps': Perhaps #1 - perhaps one should completely avoid the "What do you do?" question and first search for common ground; not by asking what books / movies / TV you have read / seen, but instead by asking have you read / seen... and then naming something of personal interest. The same method can apply to food, drink (coffee / beer / wine), music, sport, hobbies, games, etc. Perhaps #2 - when asked "What do you do?" perhaps one should answer it in an unexpected way such as, "Whatever I feel like" or "With an eye to the future, I learn from the past, to live in the moment." And then follow up quickly with a playful "What do you do?" Perhaps #3 - perhaps instead of "What do you do?" one should ask "Who are you?" and when the other party responds with their name and you have politely reciprocated, inquisitively ask "but who are you at your very best?" This will hopefully encourage (at least) a moment of thoughtful consideration, yet still can be answered simply (ex. 'a parent') without seeming to pry. (Once a relationship has developed - such as the relationship one has with oneself - we should flip the question and ask "Who are you at your very worst?").

Even when these options are exercised, at some point the "What do you do?" topic will come up, and it is still likely to have some impact on one's judgment of another, regardless of the foundation that has been built. And this is the real crux of what I have been thinking about this week; (and it only took about 1000 words). It is not only the question "What do you do?" (or "What did you do?") that has troubled me this week, but also the corollary questions "How did you do it?" - "Why did you do it?" - "Do you think I can/should do it?" - "What should you have done?" - "What should you have not done?" - "Why didn't you do (this)?"

With very few (if any) exceptions, each one of us experience Life's ups and downs in various ways, for varying lengths of time, and we each react / respond differently to these changes and challenges. When we know someone well, we have probably seen them close to or at their very best, and we have probably seen them close to or at their very worst. I have observed a human tendency to sometimes focus on another's very best traits and characteristics when they are 'up' and their very worst traits and characteristics when they are 'down'; (I am guilty). Perhaps this is indicative of our need for free will and control, helping us to rationalize another's good fortune or to explain the 'spot they've put themselves in'. But it also depends on circumstance. If we feel the circumstance is beyond their control (such as sudden, unexpected good fortune, wealth, illness, or accident), this tendency should not apply; though it may manifest itself as fear or envy.

My question is, does this make sense? Shouldn't we turn this around? When someone is down, shouldn't we work at building them up by reminding them of themselves at their very best. I believe we may often do this especially at the onset of a Life challenge. But if this challenge is prolonged... what then? And sometimes, even at the onset, we may be sincerely encouraging to the individual, but focusing our inner thoughts on what they could have, should have, etc. - in other words, we focus on their worst traits when they are down; and I believe this insincerity is, on some level, discernible. Additionally, as a difficult or challenging situation continues, it is also common to be less and less encouraging (which is perceived as discouraging), and it is not uncommon to share this 'focus on worst traits' with others. It is easy to remember the good in someone when Life is good. It is also easy for some of the aforementioned corollary questions to crowd out those memories of 'good' when Life takes a downturn. This applies to oneself as well as to others, and can (in either case) initiate and perpetuate a downward spiral that becomes more and more difficult to overcome, bringing us back to the self-fulfilling prophecy of stereotypes; (i.e. 'You are a failure').

It is difficult to avoid thinking 'could have / should have' and it is difficult to not voice opinions and advice; but when someone is down (our self or another) perhaps one should simply ask "Who are you at your very best?" in the active hope that we can know that, and hang on...

"Who are 'You' at 'your' very best?"