u/eldrinor

I used to joke a bit about people with pollen allergies. Not in a particularly mean way, but definitely in the way you do when you have absolutely no idea what something is like. Then sometime around my early 20s, I apparently became one of them.
And I can get pretty horrible symptoms. At the beginning of a bad period I can sneeze constantly, feel completely wiped out and sometimes cough up absolutely ridiculous amounts of mucus. The latter also happens when I get respiratory infections, though, which makes the whole thing even more confusing. Sometimes it’s obvious that something is going on, but less obvious whether I’m allergic, getting sick, or both.

I’m fairly convinced I have pollen allergy. There was a physician involved, my symptoms are very typical, and antihistamines help quite noticeably. But the actual assessment was incredibly brief. I described what was happening, was told it sounded like pollen allergy and got a prescription. The advice was essentially to start taking it when the season approaches and then take one tablet a day as needed, up to two. It was written on the prescription. And that was pretty much it. I didn’t even have to talk to someone in person.

I’ve asked physicians I know whether it’s strange that I never had allergy testing, and they’ve basically said no: plenty of diagnoses are made based on anamnesis/history, and if the history is typical of pollen allergy, you don’t necessarily need allergy testing. Pollen medication is also prescription free, meaning that it’s more about having to pay less.

I understand that. I’m not looking for a test because I need laboratory proof that my sneezing is legitimate. But several years later, I still feel like I have remarkably little idea what my allergy actually is.
I don’t seem to have one obvious pollen season. I seem to get symptoms during birch season, then grass, then mugwort. I’ve moved a bit further south in the country, and this summer in particular has felt endless. It feels as though I’ve been allergic to something for most of the summer rather than having one clearly defined bad period.

So I take antihistamines, get much better and eventually think, okay, surely I can stop now. Then it starts again. I check the pollen forecast and sometimes the levels are only low to moderate, and then I start questioning everything. Am I really sensitive even at those levels? Am I actually allergic to birch and grass and mugwort? Is there something else in the environment I’m reacting to? When I’m coughing up loads of mucus, is that part of the allergy or am I coincidentally getting an infection?

What makes it even stranger to me is how much allergies seem to vary over time. I barely have any problems one year and then seem absolutely destroyed by pollen another year. Some people seem to develop allergies they never had before, while others say theirs became much milder as they got older. That’s also basically what happened to me in the first place: I went from being someone who could joke about pollen allergy because it was completely irrelevant to my life, to suddenly having quite significant symptoms as an adult.

So part of me keeps wondering whether this is just what my immune system is doing right now. Could I be much less reactive again in a few years? Could how generally run-down or well I am affect how badly I react? Or am I now simply a person with multiple pollen allergies and this is what spring and summer are going to look like?

There’s also a slightly ridiculous thought I keep having: what if I eventually get allergy testing and it turns out I’m not sensitized to birch, grass or mugwort at all? I’ve spent years looking at pollen forecasts and apparently diagnosing myself with an allergy to half the plant kingdom on the basis of one very short medical assessment.

Again, I’m not really questioning whether physicians can diagnose pollen allergy from the history even though advanced apparatuses might fool me into thinking that it’s more valid. I understand why testing isn’t automatically necessary. I’m more confused about how you’re supposed to understand the pattern when you seem to have symptoms across several pollen seasons and nobody has actually established what you react to.

For those of you who developed pollen allergies as adults: did yours appear fairly suddenly? Do you react to several different types of pollen and basically have symptoms from spring through late summer? Did you ever get tested, and did knowing the specific allergens actually change anything? And most importantly, have your allergies remained fairly stable over the years, or do they genuinely come and go or vary dramatically in severity?

Fråga framför allt till läkare: kallar ni er själva eller era läkarkollegor för ”doktor”? Och förekommer ”doktor + efternamn” faktiskt mellan anställda?
Jag fick ett remissvar där en läkare benämndes ”doktor [efternamn]”, och jag blev genuint förvånad. Jag tror aldrig att jag själv har använt ”doktor” som synonym till läkare och kan inte minnas att jag tidigare hört läkare kalla varandra det. Det jag vet om är att min uppväxtmiljö sannolikt har påverkat mig i den mån att jag under småbarnsåren aldrig sagt doktor och definitivt vetat att det hör samman med professor och universitet. Jag vet också om att ”doktorn” lever kvar lite grann för läkare. Jag associerar det framför allt med barn, äldre personer eller ett äldre språkbruk, typ ”nu går vi till doktorn”. Det kan säkert också leva kvar mer i vissa delar av vården och kanske användas av exempelvis undersköterskor ibland. Men använder läkare själva det om varandra?

Jag är samtidigt uppvuxen i ett av Sveriges läkartätaste områden och ganska mycket i akademiska/högutbildade miljöer. Det är alltså inte så att läkare varit en ovanlig yrkesgrupp omkring mig.
Ändå har jag aldrig varit van vid det här språkbruket. Snarare eventuellt läkare men definitivt specialiteten, gärna så subspecialiserat som möjligt. Någon är kardiolog snarare.

Och det som egentligen förvånade mig ännu mer var ”doktor + EFTERNAMN” om en svensk kollega.
Hade jag sett samma formulering någon annanstans, utan den här kontexten, hade min spontana tanke nästan varit: ”oj, stackars, det här måste vara en tysk som inte riktigt har fattat hur Sverige fungerar än.” Är tysk själv. Att tilltala eller benämna en svensk kollega med titel + efternamn känns för mig nästan mer främmande än själva ordet doktor. Jag kan på riktigt inte minnas att jag någonsin hört det i Sverige. I Sverige kallar vi varandra för förnamn och eventuellt förnamn och efternamn. I Tyskland är titel + efternamn standard, men då betyder Dr. just att personen har doktorsexamen (har du disputerat är det en del av namnet och går in i passet).

Sedan jag började arbeta där jag gör nu har jag upptäckt fler sådana här ord.

”Sköterska” hör jag exempelvis mycket mer än jag gjort tidigare. Jag har varit van vid sjuksköterska eller den specifika titeln… distriktssjuksköterska, anestesisjuksköterska osv. Nu har jag hört ”sköterska” så mycket (från alla yrkesgrupper) att jag själv börjat säga det automatiskt ibland, och jag är faktiskt lite osäker på om det är ett språkbruk jag bör tänka på när jag kommer till andra vårdmiljöer. Det är ett vanligare ord än doktor här ska tilläggas. För ”sköterska” skulle ju kunna uppfattas som att man plumpar ihop sjuksköterskor och undersköterskor, samtidigt som det där jag arbetar verkar vara helt implicit att ”sköterskan” = sjuksköterskan. Det kanske är fullständigt neutralt vårdspråk på många håll och bara jag som inte är van vid det?

Och sedan har jag hört ordet ”lasarett”. Inte så ofta, men ändå. Där får jag nästan ännu starkare tidsresa. För mig är det mer sången ”En sal på lasarettet”. På lasarettet har man tyfus och tuberkulos. Det låter som ett krigssjukhus eller något ur en historisk roman. Jag skulle automatiskt säga sjukhus och blev genuint förvånad över att upptäcka att ”lasarett” fortfarande används helt vardagligt.

Så jag börjar misstänka att det här inte bara handlar om att jag reagerat på ett enskilt ord, utan att jag faktiskt har hamnat i en vårdkultur där flera helt normala vardagsord skiljer sig från dem jag själv är socialiserad in i: doktorn, sköterskan, lasarettet. För andra verkar de vara helt neutrala. För mig låter det stundtals som att jag råkat börja arbeta på sjukhus år 1947.

Är det såhär ”i vården”? Och ni som har en utbildning som är 5+ år, upplever ni att vården har en akademisk och kunskapsutvecklande miljö?

Så, läkare: säger ni själva ”doktor” om varandra? Skulle ni skriva ”doktor Andersson” om en läkarkollega i exempelvis ett remissvar? Ni som inte är läkare, säger ni doktor? Och om ni gör det, är ni anslutna till SACO, TCO eller Kommunal? Vad för slags arbetsplats är det? Har svårt att se att det skulle användas på KS t.ex.

Och hur är det med sköterska och lasarett där ni arbetar? Är det helt neutrala och vanliga ord för er?
Jag försöker genuint förstå vad som är vanligt svenskt vårdspråk, vad som är regionalt eller lokalt, typ av arbetsplats och vad som helt enkelt känns främmande för mig på grund av vilka miljöer jag själv kommer ifrån.

I’ve been thinking a lot about how much supervisors shape our professional development, and I honestly feel like I missed out on having a good mentor.
I often read stories from people who had supervisors that challenged them, gave thoughtful feedback, encouraged their growth, and genuinely wanted them to succeed. That hasn’t really been my experience.

Instead, my supervisor can be surprisingly mean or catty at times, and I rarely get constructive feedback. It’s often vague, dismissive, or focused on criticism without much guidance on how to improve. What makes it more confusing is that I don’t think they see me as incompetent—in fact, I think they respect my abilities. But sometimes it almost feels like they become uncomfortable or irritated when I do well, as if my successes are somehow unwelcome.

It’s left me second-guessing myself. Is this just a personality mismatch? Competition? Insecurity? Or am I reading too much into it?

Has anyone else had a supervisor who seemed to respect your competence but still wasn’t particularly supportive or even seemed to dislike seeing you succeed? How did you make sense of it, and did it affect your confidence or development as a clinician?

At the beginning, I dreaded going to work and kept thinking, “I’m going to leave this place as soon as I can.”

To be fair, there have also been supervisors who have been genuinely supportive, so it definitely hasn’t all been negative.

At the same time, I find it a little unsettling that I’m about to be licensed—in hopefully just another month—and I don’t feel like I’ve received the kind of supervision that really helped me grow. I think supervision should be one of the main places where you develop confidence and competence as a clinician.

One thing I’ve always found interesting is how Gossip Girl treats NYU.

The show basically frames it as the “fallback” compared to Yale, Columbia, Brown, and the other Ivies. Whether that’s how people actually see it or not, that’s definitely the impression the show gives, and I’ve always found it a little odd.

I’m not from the US, so this is obviously just my impression from people I’ve known who’ve studied there, people who’ve gone through the US admissions process, and from following college admissions over the years. I know reality is much more complicated than public perception: legacy admissions, donors, recruited athletes, financial aid, and a hundred other factors all play a role. But stereotypes exist for a reason, and that’s what I’m talking about here.

To me, NYU has always had the image of attracting a lot of affluent students. Not because they aren’t academically talented, many obviously are, but because it’s never struck me as the university people immediately associate with proving yourself academically. Instead, fairly or unfairly, I’ve always associated it with wealthy families, especially wealthy New Yorkers. It’s a place where even students who could have gone elsewhere might choose to go because it fits their lifestyle, social circles, or simply because they want to stay in New York.

That’s why the university choices in Gossip Girl have always felt a little backwards to me. Dan Humphrey, the middle-class outsider whose entire identity revolves around proving that he belongs, ends up at NYU. Intuitively, I would almost expect the opposite. If you’re from a middle-class family and constantly feel you have to justify your place, wouldn’t you be even more determined to get into an Ivy? Whether that’s actually how admissions work is beside the point, the symbolism is different.

To me, schools like Yale, Princeton, Oxford, or Cambridge still carry the public image of institutions where people assume you earned your place through exceptional academic achievement. Again, I know that’s an oversimplification, but perceptions matter.
NYU, on the other hand, has always symbolized something different in my mind: wealth. Not “less intelligent,” not “less accomplished”… just a different social image.

It also doesn’t feel like a coincidence that Serena is drawn to Brown rather than Yale. Compared with the other Ivies, Brown has always struck me as having a somewhat similar public image. It’s still incredibly prestigious, but it also seems to be associated with very affluent students and a slightly less traditional version of East Coast privilege. That feels much more “Serena” than “Blair.”

Blair, meanwhile, seems obsessed with objective status markers. Even though she comes from enormous privilege herself, she doesn’t just want to be elite: she wants to be able to point to something that proves she deserves her place. Yale isn’t just about prestige for her; it’s validation. It’s evidence that she belongs there because she earned it, not simply because she was born into the Upper East Side. In a way, she almost seems to want the old East Coast establishment to acknowledge her on its own terms.

Maybe that’s what the writers were going for all along. The Upper East Side characters aren’t just chasing prestige, they’re chasing legitimacy. Dan has always felt like the least natural NYU student to me. His entire character is built around wanting to prove himself academically and socially. Sure, NYU has that hipster reputation to some extent, more urban, artsy, progressive, less traditional than the Ivies. But that’s only one part of its image. To me, the other part has always been that it’s full of affluent students, especially people from wealthy New York families. Almost the ”nepo school”. It can’t be a complete coincidence that, after Yale falls through, Blair eventually gets into NYU through connections.

I’ve been trying to put something into words that I’ve noticed about myself.

It feels like my sense of respect operates almost like a separate evaluation system. It’s related to self-interest, but it isn’t determined by it. For example, imagine I ask my manager for a very large raise. I might genuinely believe I deserve it. I might even believe that paying me more is a good business decision because of the value I bring. Obviously, I want the raise. But at the same time, I find myself asking a completely different question:
“What does this decision tell me about whether this person is actually a good manager?”

If my manager gives me exactly what I want, I don’t automatically respect them more. Depending on what I think the decision reveals about their ability as a manager, I can actually end up respecting them less. Likewise, a manager can make a decision that hurts me personally, yet I may respect them more if I think it reflects good judgment. This isn’t because I believe good managers should always say no or always be strict, the example can go in the opposite direction as well.

What’s even stranger is how this affects my relationship with organizations. Sometimes I find myself thinking about what’s genuinely best for the organization rather than what’s best for me. Because of that, I can tolerate a surprising amount of personal inconvenience or unfairness if I believe it serves the organization’s long-term interests. At the same time, I’m also highly ambitious within those same organizations. I want to contribute, improve things, take on responsibility, and have a meaningful impact but also advance in terms of income, position, role. So it’s not that I don’t value myself or that I’m passive.
It’s more like I become invested in the organization’s success almost as a goal in itself.
This creates an odd tension. My own interests, my ambitions, and my respect for the competence of people around me don’t always point in the same direction. Sometimes I want something personally while simultaneously thinking that the organization or the person in charge shouldn’t necessarily give it to me.

Does anyone else think this way? Thoughts? Advice?

I’ve been wondering how fat distribution fits into Kibbe.

Fat distribution obviously affects how clothes fit and how a silhouette appears. For women, some fat storage on the lower body is common, but curve also involves areas like the bust and sometimes the upper arms. If there is never any fat added there, nothing would interrupt ”vertical” garments. So far so good, but this all assumes a normal, non-pathological fat distribution.

How does Kibbe account for conditions that can significantly affect fat distribution, such as lipedema or PCOS? Can they change accommodation needs in practice, or is the idea that you should look past fat distribution and focus on the underlying line of the body? Or are certain conditions more common for certain ID:s? That sounds a bit too metaphysical for my liking and is something I wouldn’t like personally as those are medical conditions but lipedema and PCOS likely affects the body in a very opposite way obviously. Maybe even things like a mastectomy.

Has David Kibbe or the community ever addressed this specifically?

Just curious. I think he once said something like that the accomodations could change but not the Image ID.

Advice on where to proceed further? I’ve been on/off a lot in the Kibbe sphere and I’m not wiser now. Yes I could continue posting but one bad photo with a warped perspective can make Kibbe say things in a very sweeping and assured way, and I also think it feels a bit exposing.

However I’m more grounded in myself now - I was with my body before but now I think my ”identity” is more settled in the sense that it’s onward now. I’m 28, so still relatively young but adult and in the beginning of my professional journey and the journey of building an own life. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this is a typical age for Kibbe.

I also am tired of experimenting and want to invest in a wardrobe that is cohesive and suits me and my goals. Yes, some experimenting is fun but still.

But I’m a bit stuck. All in all:

- My shoulders are narrow rather than broad relative to my bust, and especially after the clarification of what width is actually compared against and what those descriptions mean, I’m even less convinced that I have Kibbe width.
- I’m not obviously long-lined or short-lined.
I’m slightly curvy, yes, but also somewhat narrow. Both in the conventional sense.
- I’ve received positive feedback on SC, though never an outright “yes.”
- I know the original questionnaire isn’t used anymore, but in the old system I could never clearly place myself. SC was C with some E answers (softly wide) or D (curved but narrower, though described as delicate). DC was with B (more angular, square, or slightly wider, with Natural influence) or A (narrow and tapered). For some, A versus D is obvious - not for me.
- I’m not entirely sure whether my upper hip is contained within my silhouette or if it’s equal with the shoulder. Bone wise no, but then again, the line can be a bit outside the actual hip bone and then it’s even.
- I can wear a certain amount of colour blocking. Watercolours work for certain clothes yes, but I can wear contrast and so on.
- For a long time I was thinking DC or SC, but I don’t feel particularly soft, nor do I come across as especially commanding (well C is C first and foremost but even compared to them).
- I identified with Catherine Deneuve for a while—the slightly more yang-leaning SC archetype. Yes she is the main celebrity now, but she was pure C.
- At 5’4”, I’m kind of in-between height wise.
- Objectively, my upper body is narrower than average and lower body rather average, and my bone structure is below average in scale. My wrists are slim, though not obviously tiny.
- Recently I’ve started wondering whether FG is more possible than I previously thought. Confusing with C might not seem obvious but I can definitely see it for some! And FG can be both typically elegant and body wise ”balanced” (in the conventional sense).
- I don’t really see myself in Olivia de Havilland nor in prime DC or some DC:s.
- I’ve asked several times about the overall impression I give (such as first impression forums), and the answers have often pointed toward C. One Facebook moderator mentioned that as well who I asked.
- Some people answered that I fit the finance-professional and not at all something else, while others felt I was far too soft for that and saw me as working with art and very people like.
- Maybe I can share that.
- What I’ve realised recently is that I apparently do give off a certain manager-like vibe, which surprised me. I would have assumed people saw me more as a teacher if comparing to something at least manager like. If anything I think more about being a not large woman who also can look pretty gentle.
- I often feel like a bit of a chameleon and can change my overall vibe quite a lot through clothing and styling! Which is fun. This does not mean that I can wear everything but adding and working with details can affect my impression a lot.
- In Rita’s system, after meeting her in person, she suggested Gentle Grace or Princess.
- I see some similarities with Maggie Siff, but softer (she’s not the angular type of DC but not someone where you would say vertical first and curve second). I don’t know her ID but then a bit more Emma Robert’s esque facially (as in someone who has certain similarities in where features are placed and so on, but a finer boned maybe) without being sharper in a more yang way. Likewise I can compare myself to a lot of more yin in the overall sense of body shape. I’m very sure that I an not a TR but I know of people that probably could share some clothes with me and would have very similar height/measurements/and so on. Hard to explain what I mean, superficially and objectively similar but not the same Kibbe balance at all. She’s also both taller and older than I am. I’ve realised that facial fullness changes quite a lot with age, which makes celebrity comparisons less straightforward. Comparing a 28-year-old to someone in their 40s isn’t always very useful.

Thoughts on how to proceed?

Okay, I get that the system overall is really good and adds a lot of structure, but there’s one thing I’m genuinely struggling with:

How do you actually determine whether “vertical” or “curve” is your dominant?

Right now it feels like you have to choose one as your main dominant, whereas before it felt easier to not focus on that as much. I can see aspects of both in myself, and the more I analyze it, the more unsure I get.

Are there any concrete ways to figure out which one really takes priority? Like what to look for when it feels 50/50? Or is it more of an overall impression you just have to sit with over time?

Also, to add some context: before this, I felt like I had a pretty clear idea of what my dominant was, and was more unsure about my secondary. But once I leaned into that and started dressing/typing with it in mind, things actually went really well. Everything just kind of clicked after I committed to it. Now, curve/vertical is dominant instead!