Archetypes and Presentation

Last week, a friend and I discussed how some acquaintances made a point of distinguishing their major as Symbolic Systems rather than Computer Science. For context, Symbolic Systems at Stanford integrates CS with Psychology, Linguistics, Neuroscience, and other disciplines. My friend speculated that this distinction, despite their LinkedIn profiles, presentations, and money-driven goals clearly aligning with CS, was a strategy to appear more “human.” Majoring in CS at Stanford, according to some, carries a negative aesthetic, although they did not hesitate to leverage Stanford’s CS reputation to secure venture capital funding, despite their limited real CS experience. Majoring in CS at Stanford supposedly implies fitting a certain archetype.

This notion of archetypes has intrigued me. An acquaintance first mentioned it when we had dinner, and I wore a funny hat and sunglasses, thinking it would be interesting. He noted that deviating from the stereotypical image of a CS person—typically someone in hoodies and t-shirts — can be socially disadvantageous. It becomes harder for people to categorize you, leading to potential negative or simplistic classifications. Being multifaceted can hinder making a strong first impression.

Reflecting on this, I realize it holds true in many ways. I often hesitate to discuss my poetry publications, musical improvisations, or my love for (admittedly pretentious) films in circles that see me solely as a CS person. Mentioning these interests could seem awkward and might undermine my CS skills in the eyes of those who do not know me well. Even as a reader unfamiliar with me, you might perceive me as less committed to CS if I appear to have too many diverse interests. I might be seen as a “jack of all trades, master of none,” rather than a master in one field.

Similarly, I avoid discussing other STEM topics, such as my research in material science or my achievements in various Olympiads. It might seem like I could easily shift focus away from CS, or revert to these other fields instead of committing to becoming a startup founder, quant, or proficient software engineer.

The Fact Is

I aspire to find a meta-archetype, a way to present myself not as someone who does too much, but as someone who excels in multiple domains. I know this involves being more open about my accomplishments, even if it feels unnatural to me to “brag.” Hopefully, this should naturally result in it becoming apparent that I am not spread too thin. Rather, I am truly interested and proficient in everything that I do, where I am able to accomplish things quickly in new fields with little prior experience.

Presnting myself this way ties into the broader question of being serious. So, what does this entail? Yes, I am engaged in state-of-the-art MRI reconstruction research. Yes, I have numerous hobby projects with the potential to become products. Yes, I am implementing and parallelizing machine learning models from scratch at a startup. Yes, I have the capacity to found a startup, work at a quant firm, or be a proficient software engineer, while also pursuing my other passions. I have done it before, succeeding in multiple olympiad competitions while still doing material science research and leading various student initiatives throughout high school. Who says I can’t keep up with being deeply involved in robotics while continuing my other interests, whether improvising piano, startups, or machine learning systems? Each interest enriches the other — being only focused on one thing narrows the mind to never think outside of the box. David Bowie could never have made his brilliant Blackstar without listening to out-of-domain artists like Kendrick Lamar and Death Grips.