It's easy to just get up to your neck in the muck of the normal. People can easily spend some forty years at a job, being perfectly content with their place in the organization. Or people could find themselves living in one place for their entire lives, and not bat an eyelid about it. Or live their lives exactly the same way from year to year, go to the same places every weekend, take the same routes and bus lines, meet the same group of people everytime.
It is quite human to do things like this. It's easy, it's the way of least resistance, and best of all, most people do it, so nobody feels bad.
If however you're a bit more restless, you'd need a fairly constant influx of new influences at regular intervals. And if those are not forthcoming, you would have to get them yourself. That requires you to start something new, be it learning a new skill, read a new kind of book, go to a place you've never been before.
You in some way or fashion move away from your comfort zone, maybe into a place where you indeed shouldn't be. It takes some courage to take the first step, and some more courage to persist in what you want to achieve, no matter how big or small. You would have to show a little more bravery if you start new things alone, without the support and guidance of friends, people in the know.
You'd need even more courage if the new thing is something most other people already know. You'd find yourself not just out of your comfort zone, but also at a disadvantage. It's like a sports team agreeing to never play home games. You could find yourself at a party, where everybody knows each other already, has history together... and then there's you with no knowledge of what is going on, and feeling and probably looking out-of-place.
In fact, courage may not even figure in here. It's more a matter of masochism. Are you willing to undergo solitude, frustration, just to experience something new?
I can't think of anything that's more human, and of a measure that's more defining of human character that that.
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Sunday, February 18, 2007
An even more inconvenient truth
If you haven't heard about Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, you've been avoiding important news for too long guys. Hell, he even got people fired up for a Live Aid-like series of concerts this year, so you know it's gonna be big.
Basically Gore has been giving seminars all over the world to spread the word that the world climate is changing for the worse, and that we all must act now to prevent it from getting really, really bad. The seminar (dated 2005) is formatted into a documentary, interspersed with some brief personal notes from Gore, and released on DVD this past week. Of course, the DVD is very U.S.-centric, but still his argument, his evidence is compelling and an absolute must-see. In fact, this DVD may be the most important to come out in the past year, and comes highly recommended.
I however wasn't planing on making this post a DVD review, but I do want to make a couple of statements about Gore's message in general.
Gore's biggest challenge in all this has not been fighting climate change. It has been getting his point across to (the right) people, and to make them take further action. This is not a new thing. People have to spend a lot of time to put new priorities on other people's agendas, and this is hard. Our time, our energy, our money even is fully spent and fully committed on things that we find important (house, car, work, projects, love, children, mortgage, hobbies, fetishes, vacations etc.), and now someone else is telling us we should make room in our busy schedules for something else. Not to mention that it's about a subject (climate change) that most people know nothing about, want to know very little about, and is so off-the-scale distant and massive, that we don't see the added value fo us. Of course, what Gore aims for is that his argument can convince us that we should make this our problem. That we should re-prioritize and put climate change high on our agendas, because WE feel it is important.
And this is probably where Gore's approach has met resistance. I'm sure most people (orthodox religious excepted) can understand the scientific rationale, and see where Gore is going. What I don't think he has been able to do so far, is - despite all this - to make this more important than all the other points on even a single person's agenda. All our time and energy is already spent, and to put this in, is to take something else out. Maybe something that's actually the livelihood of a person (farmer in the Amazon; gas driller in the North Sea; car manufacturer in Detroit), who doesn't have no alternatives, and is not presented with any. His argument is strong, but much too general, and too final as well (Stop doing this now).
Gore's argument goes another way, and he makes it a moral issue. 'We should act now, because it is the right thing to do. Because it is what we must do to give our children a future.' He is absolutely right about internalizing the issue in people, tie it into things that are important for them, like progeny. Again however, this only appeals to certain groups of people. Plus, the argument appeals to making expectations about the future, and we all bloody well know how bad we are at doing that. Most people will just leave it at that.
The message is diluted with me in a couple of ways. I could use public transport to go to work, and leave the car. I could drive more responsibly, drive right lanes always, 90 km/h on the freeway. But I like driving my car. I feel inconvenienced when I have to wait on a train to arrive. I feel frustrated when I lose half an hour each way because I have to ride along longer tracks. I hate the look of the hybrid cars (I'm looking at you Toyota). And I worked hard to get in a position where I can actually drive a good car, not necessarily environmentally sound, and I can use it to get in the fastest way I can imagine. I have invested time and energy to get a car, and I was not about to let it go. The car is an internal value for me.
I could sign up for green energy, instead of the standard brown stuff. But why should I pay more for what's essentially something that I don't notice at all? My house is not gonna smell nicer, my lights are not gonna be brighter, my oven won't go any faster, hell my TV won't suddenly last twice as long.
You want to make sure I take part? Fine, but let me keep all the stuff I find important and don't bother me with extra costs. It's expensive enough as it is.
See? A very individual view on what this guy feels is important to him. And I doubt other people feel differently (not about cars and energy per se, but definitely about something).
Society consists of individuals now, because it can. There's no real big issue floating above us (hostile aliens, meteorites, war or natural disaster if you look at the local Dutch scale), that can make us re-prioritize. Things can change quickly though. It only takes one flood, one drought, one serious loss of life, to put global warming top on everyone's agenda. Only this time, it is forced upon us.
Al Gore hopes we individually see the light and take action before it gets that far. That we can actually do something about it, in our own time. Not when the tide is up to our nose. I sincerely hope he succeeds.
Basically Gore has been giving seminars all over the world to spread the word that the world climate is changing for the worse, and that we all must act now to prevent it from getting really, really bad. The seminar (dated 2005) is formatted into a documentary, interspersed with some brief personal notes from Gore, and released on DVD this past week. Of course, the DVD is very U.S.-centric, but still his argument, his evidence is compelling and an absolute must-see. In fact, this DVD may be the most important to come out in the past year, and comes highly recommended.
I however wasn't planing on making this post a DVD review, but I do want to make a couple of statements about Gore's message in general.
Gore's biggest challenge in all this has not been fighting climate change. It has been getting his point across to (the right) people, and to make them take further action. This is not a new thing. People have to spend a lot of time to put new priorities on other people's agendas, and this is hard. Our time, our energy, our money even is fully spent and fully committed on things that we find important (house, car, work, projects, love, children, mortgage, hobbies, fetishes, vacations etc.), and now someone else is telling us we should make room in our busy schedules for something else. Not to mention that it's about a subject (climate change) that most people know nothing about, want to know very little about, and is so off-the-scale distant and massive, that we don't see the added value fo us. Of course, what Gore aims for is that his argument can convince us that we should make this our problem. That we should re-prioritize and put climate change high on our agendas, because WE feel it is important.
And this is probably where Gore's approach has met resistance. I'm sure most people (orthodox religious excepted) can understand the scientific rationale, and see where Gore is going. What I don't think he has been able to do so far, is - despite all this - to make this more important than all the other points on even a single person's agenda. All our time and energy is already spent, and to put this in, is to take something else out. Maybe something that's actually the livelihood of a person (farmer in the Amazon; gas driller in the North Sea; car manufacturer in Detroit), who doesn't have no alternatives, and is not presented with any. His argument is strong, but much too general, and too final as well (Stop doing this now).
Gore's argument goes another way, and he makes it a moral issue. 'We should act now, because it is the right thing to do. Because it is what we must do to give our children a future.' He is absolutely right about internalizing the issue in people, tie it into things that are important for them, like progeny. Again however, this only appeals to certain groups of people. Plus, the argument appeals to making expectations about the future, and we all bloody well know how bad we are at doing that. Most people will just leave it at that.
The message is diluted with me in a couple of ways. I could use public transport to go to work, and leave the car. I could drive more responsibly, drive right lanes always, 90 km/h on the freeway. But I like driving my car. I feel inconvenienced when I have to wait on a train to arrive. I feel frustrated when I lose half an hour each way because I have to ride along longer tracks. I hate the look of the hybrid cars (I'm looking at you Toyota). And I worked hard to get in a position where I can actually drive a good car, not necessarily environmentally sound, and I can use it to get in the fastest way I can imagine. I have invested time and energy to get a car, and I was not about to let it go. The car is an internal value for me.
I could sign up for green energy, instead of the standard brown stuff. But why should I pay more for what's essentially something that I don't notice at all? My house is not gonna smell nicer, my lights are not gonna be brighter, my oven won't go any faster, hell my TV won't suddenly last twice as long.
You want to make sure I take part? Fine, but let me keep all the stuff I find important and don't bother me with extra costs. It's expensive enough as it is.
See? A very individual view on what this guy feels is important to him. And I doubt other people feel differently (not about cars and energy per se, but definitely about something).
Society consists of individuals now, because it can. There's no real big issue floating above us (hostile aliens, meteorites, war or natural disaster if you look at the local Dutch scale), that can make us re-prioritize. Things can change quickly though. It only takes one flood, one drought, one serious loss of life, to put global warming top on everyone's agenda. Only this time, it is forced upon us.
Al Gore hopes we individually see the light and take action before it gets that far. That we can actually do something about it, in our own time. Not when the tide is up to our nose. I sincerely hope he succeeds.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Importance
The things people find important can be found in the traditions they keep, the rituals they hold. I myself have a couple, such as celebrating my birthday every other year with a huge dinner... You probably would also stay with your family during Christmas... My father prays every day after getting up and just before going to sleep... Our team has this Friday-night drinking binge where we just forget about the week and start our weekends as they should... entire droves of Americans gather round the television to see a football game during Thanksgiving or Christmas Eve... These are all examples of institutions, traditions, and rituals that people tend to keep. Every single one valuable, albeit for different purposes.
Traditions gain strength the longer the period during which they are retained. Sometimes even so much that we forget the original purpose behind a tradition, and raise the tradition itself to importance. That seems to be recurring issue in religion, anthropology, but also politics.
I do think that whatever I find very important I should institutionalize, turn in to a tradition or a ritual. I just have to make sure that I don't forget what I did it for in the first place.
Traditions gain strength the longer the period during which they are retained. Sometimes even so much that we forget the original purpose behind a tradition, and raise the tradition itself to importance. That seems to be recurring issue in religion, anthropology, but also politics.
I do think that whatever I find very important I should institutionalize, turn in to a tradition or a ritual. I just have to make sure that I don't forget what I did it for in the first place.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Persistence is Futile
Human nature when it really comes down to it, is not so hard to understand. In its purest form we are all cavemen trying to make sure we have plenty of meat when we're hungry, enough mammoth wool when we're cold, and enough escape routes when a troupe of sabertooth tigers comes down our alley.
In the modern age we did however frick it up big time, with religion, race, love, power, drugs, economy, wealth, fear, and science making things endlessly more complicated.
It all comes from the same motivation. Human nature is to survive in the broadest sense of the word. We procreate to have our genes dispersed and evolve when we ourselves cannot. We leave lasting legacies of our work in this land (a skyscraper, a wood carving, a book, a piece of music) so that generations of people can enjoy it. We provide - by the very actions we take - inspiration and new experiences for others to have. Maybe survival is not really the right word. Persistence is better. Human nature is to persist. Everything we do is about making our mark in the world, regardless of our lifespan.
You could say nothing in our lives can persist forever. If you are an astronomist adhering to the Big Bang/Crunch theory, eventually all of existence will eventually vanish. Even if you're not, you could still be sensitive to the Sun either swallowing the Earth whole or taking the planet out with a huge snuff. So in that sense, what's the use?
Persistence is futile, the Borg would say.
Or you could go my way, which is this. While our lives are irrevocably driven by the passage of time, each moment stands on its own. Maybe some form of existence is allowed to see the universe without regard of time, and experience only individual moments. I strive to have each moment make me look good. I don't need to do or to act to persist. I already do, by the very fact that I am here.
Life is persistence. What exactly makes you look good or even remotely interesting at any given moment though is something that you only occasionally choose and sometimes stumble unto.
In the modern age we did however frick it up big time, with religion, race, love, power, drugs, economy, wealth, fear, and science making things endlessly more complicated.
It all comes from the same motivation. Human nature is to survive in the broadest sense of the word. We procreate to have our genes dispersed and evolve when we ourselves cannot. We leave lasting legacies of our work in this land (a skyscraper, a wood carving, a book, a piece of music) so that generations of people can enjoy it. We provide - by the very actions we take - inspiration and new experiences for others to have. Maybe survival is not really the right word. Persistence is better. Human nature is to persist. Everything we do is about making our mark in the world, regardless of our lifespan.
You could say nothing in our lives can persist forever. If you are an astronomist adhering to the Big Bang/Crunch theory, eventually all of existence will eventually vanish. Even if you're not, you could still be sensitive to the Sun either swallowing the Earth whole or taking the planet out with a huge snuff. So in that sense, what's the use?
Persistence is futile, the Borg would say.
Or you could go my way, which is this. While our lives are irrevocably driven by the passage of time, each moment stands on its own. Maybe some form of existence is allowed to see the universe without regard of time, and experience only individual moments. I strive to have each moment make me look good. I don't need to do or to act to persist. I already do, by the very fact that I am here.
Life is persistence. What exactly makes you look good or even remotely interesting at any given moment though is something that you only occasionally choose and sometimes stumble unto.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Motivation and Attitude
The Chelsea football club youth system apparently has this neat psychological profile for their players, along the dimensions of Motivation and Attitude. It looks highly useful in a football context, but it seems also useful in my context...
The motivation dimension mainly has to do with the degree of proaction a person exhibits. A highly motivated person is less likely to sit still and more likely to take action. The attitude dimension describes if a person tends to see things in a positive light or a negative one. A person with a good attitude leans more towards positivity. When faced with challenges he finds solutions, thinks ahead, and he cares.
Now, considering these two dimensions, four main profiles come into play:
The motivation dimension mainly has to do with the degree of proaction a person exhibits. A highly motivated person is less likely to sit still and more likely to take action. The attitude dimension describes if a person tends to see things in a positive light or a negative one. A person with a good attitude leans more towards positivity. When faced with challenges he finds solutions, thinks ahead, and he cares.
Now, considering these two dimensions, four main profiles come into play:
- a person with low motivation and bad attitude is a Victim. He draws everything that's bad toward himself, and internalizes it. He feels personally attacked.
- a person with low motivation and good attitude is a Spectator. These guys let everything run their course, often to their own detriment. They wait things out and are likely to stay still rather than take action.
- a person with high motivation, and bad attitude is a Cynic. Cynics are actually often very skilled people, but extremely two-faced and always highly negative about their immediate environment. They can be regarded as egoists.
- finally highly motivated people with good attitudes are Team players. You simply cannot have enough of these.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Inner-outer space
Our motivations are strongly diverse, but eventually they all come back to survival and making sense of life and the world around us. We differ most in the way we drive our value system. Some of us are inherently inwardly oriented, others are outward. The former does not derive value from external factors (e.g. other people's opinions, gossip, awards, recognition), up to the point where he does not care what others think of him. The inwardly oriented person checks himself if he is doing well or not, goes about his business, regardless of circumstances. He can be arrogant, aloof, superior, but also nerdy, uncomplicated, stubborn.
The latter derives much, if not all of his self-worth from how others see him. He is acutely aware of other people's opinions and works to great lengths to bring them in his favor. He does so by being nice, looking people in the eye, showing respect, handing out gifts, shoulder pats and so on. He is uncontroversial, but also seems unreal and sometimes even not very authentic.
Depending on your outlook in life, physical traits, interests, skills you have and/or obtained, one approach or the other works better for you. The great challenge is finding out which one. Unfortunately not everyone gets it right, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
The latter derives much, if not all of his self-worth from how others see him. He is acutely aware of other people's opinions and works to great lengths to bring them in his favor. He does so by being nice, looking people in the eye, showing respect, handing out gifts, shoulder pats and so on. He is uncontroversial, but also seems unreal and sometimes even not very authentic.
Depending on your outlook in life, physical traits, interests, skills you have and/or obtained, one approach or the other works better for you. The great challenge is finding out which one. Unfortunately not everyone gets it right, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Don't ask, don't tell
Apparently I am very good at keeping secrets... or actually I am very good at not telling secrets. I am extremely bad at hiding I keep a secret.
In all actuality I do want to tell everything I know, but there's a couple of things stopping me:
In all actuality I do want to tell everything I know, but there's a couple of things stopping me:
- is it appropriate to just spill the beans?
- trust is big virtue for me, and I associate keeping something inside with being more trustworthy than just gossiping around
- sometimes whatever you think is a big secret, is actually not; I feel you can lose face if your big news is in fact not so big
Monday, September 25, 2006
General admission
Now pay attention, because this doesn't tend to happen a lot... but I'll admit something bad about myself today.
My biggest character failing is that I expect everyone whom I deal with to play according to the (i.e. my) rules. And for whatever reason, be it insight, perspective, opinion, belief, intelligence etc., that is not realistic to expect. Most of my time is spent on convincing people to see my way.
Actually I don't want to spend that time at all, and just assume people to go along with me as-is. The nastiest thing is that I act/am insulted when people act irrationally... according to my logic. Realistically, I can't ever expect anyone to be just as rational as me from the get-go.
So despite this, why do I keep holding these expectations? Why is it so important that people see things my way, without me having to convince them? How can I be so sure of myself that my way is the best way, and my way should be self-evident for everyone?
The English language has words for this:
My biggest character failing is that I expect everyone whom I deal with to play according to the (i.e. my) rules. And for whatever reason, be it insight, perspective, opinion, belief, intelligence etc., that is not realistic to expect. Most of my time is spent on convincing people to see my way.
Actually I don't want to spend that time at all, and just assume people to go along with me as-is. The nastiest thing is that I act/am insulted when people act irrationally... according to my logic. Realistically, I can't ever expect anyone to be just as rational as me from the get-go.
So despite this, why do I keep holding these expectations? Why is it so important that people see things my way, without me having to convince them? How can I be so sure of myself that my way is the best way, and my way should be self-evident for everyone?
The English language has words for this:
- arrogant
- stubborn
- short-sighted
- fundamentalist
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Everything I know I learned from the Lion King
Today we got two special letters in the mail. One announced the birth of my old school mate's daughter. It's his third baby girl, and he's not planning for more I think. You need only imagine what happens when the girls are (about to reach the proper age for) dating.
Congratulations BTW.
Another letter announced the passing of a great-uncle of my parents. Already advanced in age, and a widower, the announcement was still a shocking development. The guy was by all accounts still quite sharp. For sure a damn pity.
My condoleances.
The Lion King's theme - if I remember correctly - was The Circle Of Life. People live, people die, and people live again. No better was this theme symbolized than in today's mail.
Congratulations BTW.
Another letter announced the passing of a great-uncle of my parents. Already advanced in age, and a widower, the announcement was still a shocking development. The guy was by all accounts still quite sharp. For sure a damn pity.
My condoleances.
The Lion King's theme - if I remember correctly - was The Circle Of Life. People live, people die, and people live again. No better was this theme symbolized than in today's mail.
Monday, September 11, 2006
More excuses
In last post, I stated that we need valid, acceptable excuses to initiate any kind of relationship among ourselves. Following this, I pose now that the toughest excuses one makes are those made to oneself.
Everything you see, feel, hear around you triggers the question, why? Or maybe how? People by nature are curious and always need to know the answer to these questions. That's why we've got things like religion, laws and regulations, expert opinions, televised talk shows and so on.
Thing is, it is delusional to say that the answer to these questions is the unequivocal truth. It is more like an excuse, an acceptable explanation that placates your wonder and amazement. It is a deal you make with yourself to satisfy your mood.
How acceptable such an excuse is, is really a matter of circumstance. Whether or not you make a career change, totally depends on how you justify it for yourself. You can essentially explain it both ways. Whether or not you believe in the WTC conspiracies, depends on which way you are inclined to see the situation. If you make enough excuses, you can basically justify everything there is to know.
And herein lies our biggest battle. In our search for the answers, we strive to reach the truth totally and utterly. The only way we know how to reach the answers is to agree on theories, concepts, ideas, rumours, opinions, moods, fitness, or laws. Each excuse draws us further from the truth. The very means of getting us forward, pulls us backwards instead.
Everything you see, feel, hear around you triggers the question, why? Or maybe how? People by nature are curious and always need to know the answer to these questions. That's why we've got things like religion, laws and regulations, expert opinions, televised talk shows and so on.
Thing is, it is delusional to say that the answer to these questions is the unequivocal truth. It is more like an excuse, an acceptable explanation that placates your wonder and amazement. It is a deal you make with yourself to satisfy your mood.
How acceptable such an excuse is, is really a matter of circumstance. Whether or not you make a career change, totally depends on how you justify it for yourself. You can essentially explain it both ways. Whether or not you believe in the WTC conspiracies, depends on which way you are inclined to see the situation. If you make enough excuses, you can basically justify everything there is to know.
And herein lies our biggest battle. In our search for the answers, we strive to reach the truth totally and utterly. The only way we know how to reach the answers is to agree on theories, concepts, ideas, rumours, opinions, moods, fitness, or laws. Each excuse draws us further from the truth. The very means of getting us forward, pulls us backwards instead.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Necessary Excuse
Excuses drive relationships more than you can imagine. For nearly all instances in life, you're going to need an excuse just to get together. It might be a birthday, a wedding, a funeral, an anniversary. You now need an excuse just to talk to someone, be it in a store (you want to buy goods), in a bar (you want to pick someone up), or in sports (you want to win).
It can't just be any excuse either. For one you need to get away with it. Car salesmen generally don't sell cars to shabbily dressed people, no matter how much money they prove to have on their bank accounts. The excuse also has to be socially acceptable and match the desired outcome of the relationship. You can tell your boss you need a vacation, just before the holiday season. You cannot tell him you need time off, just to play a video game at home or do grocery shopping.
In all this the excuse does not necessarily have to be true. It just has to be acceptable enough to get things running along. (Although I must say, for most people the truth is a lot easier to keep up with than a lie)
It can't just be any excuse either. For one you need to get away with it. Car salesmen generally don't sell cars to shabbily dressed people, no matter how much money they prove to have on their bank accounts. The excuse also has to be socially acceptable and match the desired outcome of the relationship. You can tell your boss you need a vacation, just before the holiday season. You cannot tell him you need time off, just to play a video game at home or do grocery shopping.
In all this the excuse does not necessarily have to be true. It just has to be acceptable enough to get things running along. (Although I must say, for most people the truth is a lot easier to keep up with than a lie)
Monday, September 04, 2006
Passion of the Xrist
Interviews with successful people in popular and professional media tend to look alike. Everyone wants to know how they got to be so successful, rich, powerful and whatnot. Hopefully the answers will inspire more people to do the same.
Most of these people describe their key motivation as being passionate about their jobs. They don't mind putting in the time, the extra energy and effort. They push through when they're faced with adversity. All in the name of passion.
Now for me this just isn't useful. I agree that you need dedication to reach success, and having a passion for something/someone is a very strong form of dedication. I think you do need this, because otherwise everyone would be able to reach their goals simply by putting in the time. That would be too easy.
However a passion is something that you can't tell anyone to have. You either have it or you don't. Steve Irwin has so much of it, he got killed for it. I'm pretty sure everyone has a passion for something, and some of us are even able to make a living out of it, but there are plenty of people who don't have strong feelings about their livelihood. They just get their wages, and move on to their hobbies. Or worse: they may have so many extra-curricular activities (second job, in debt, children, at war, in fear, sick etc.) on their minds, they don't get to live out their passions at all.
Seriously, telling everyone you've got a passion for your job and that being the main reason for your success, is like a kick in the nuts. It's like waving and eating a fresh turkey sandwich in front of a hungry homeless person.
Most of these people describe their key motivation as being passionate about their jobs. They don't mind putting in the time, the extra energy and effort. They push through when they're faced with adversity. All in the name of passion.
Now for me this just isn't useful. I agree that you need dedication to reach success, and having a passion for something/someone is a very strong form of dedication. I think you do need this, because otherwise everyone would be able to reach their goals simply by putting in the time. That would be too easy.
However a passion is something that you can't tell anyone to have. You either have it or you don't. Steve Irwin has so much of it, he got killed for it. I'm pretty sure everyone has a passion for something, and some of us are even able to make a living out of it, but there are plenty of people who don't have strong feelings about their livelihood. They just get their wages, and move on to their hobbies. Or worse: they may have so many extra-curricular activities (second job, in debt, children, at war, in fear, sick etc.) on their minds, they don't get to live out their passions at all.
Seriously, telling everyone you've got a passion for your job and that being the main reason for your success, is like a kick in the nuts. It's like waving and eating a fresh turkey sandwich in front of a hungry homeless person.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Moment's gone
Some news you're supposed to be happy with, and supposed to enjoy when it reaches you. Of course you should hear this news at the opportune time, not when your cat just died, or you just got a speeding ticket in the mail.
At that point good news - even the best possible news - becomes just news. The moment passes, never to return.
It is so important to cherish the time when something good happens. It should be experienced to the fullest. These moments are so rare, and rely on the convergence of so many factors, it's ridiculous.
At that point good news - even the best possible news - becomes just news. The moment passes, never to return.
It is so important to cherish the time when something good happens. It should be experienced to the fullest. These moments are so rare, and rely on the convergence of so many factors, it's ridiculous.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Self Fulfilling Prophecies
Here's a thing I've come to realize recently: don't underestimate the power of self fulfilling prophecies. You know the kind. You try to steer away from a bad situation, and end up sleeping with your mom.
The crazy thing is, once it gets that status of self fulfillment, there's no steering possible anymore. Your entire mindset points toward one inevitable outcome, and all your (in)actions will - whether you want it or not - eventually lead in that same direction.
Destiny? I think not. Fate? Heck no. God's Will? Give me a break. Self Fulfilling Prophecies are proof that man is the complete and only cause of its own downfall.
The crazy thing is, once it gets that status of self fulfillment, there's no steering possible anymore. Your entire mindset points toward one inevitable outcome, and all your (in)actions will - whether you want it or not - eventually lead in that same direction.
Destiny? I think not. Fate? Heck no. God's Will? Give me a break. Self Fulfilling Prophecies are proof that man is the complete and only cause of its own downfall.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Bored out of their mind
People have no higher goals to strive for. All the land on this planet has been colonized (Google Earth), everyone has already done everything (marathon running, climbing Everest, kite surfing, fisting etc.), new technologies are following each other at such great speed that we don't even notice anymore; There's no great threat or enemy waiting just around the corner. No commies, no dictators (because we ousted them all), no diseases (at least not for very long).
Everything's just more of the same. Been there, done that.
People are bored. So people do as people do when they get bored: they surf on the interweb, complain about the high taxes, traffic, the weather, or they go to war. If there are no ideals to reach for, we just make them up on our own. Fight terrorism? Check. Take away nuclear power in Iran/Korea? Check. Israel? Check.
If things are supposed to be faster, better than ever before, then why do people feel so bored out of their minds? In that respect, why do people choose to fill their boredom with extremely pointless activities (genocide, grass, video games etc.)?
Everything's just more of the same. Been there, done that.
People are bored. So people do as people do when they get bored: they surf on the interweb, complain about the high taxes, traffic, the weather, or they go to war. If there are no ideals to reach for, we just make them up on our own. Fight terrorism? Check. Take away nuclear power in Iran/Korea? Check. Israel? Check.
If things are supposed to be faster, better than ever before, then why do people feel so bored out of their minds? In that respect, why do people choose to fill their boredom with extremely pointless activities (genocide, grass, video games etc.)?
Monday, July 17, 2006
ECHO!! Echo! Echo...
My conscience is eating me... lately I make some statements about work, about pop culture, about life in general, and others are repeating what I said almost literally... now how should I react:
Creative not much? I know it's a good idea, because I've just said it. I don't need it repeated back to me.
Or:
Should I be flattered that other people are listening to what I say, and are picking up on it? Should I feel solace in the fact that people apparently think the same way I do?
Some guidance now would be nice...
Creative not much? I know it's a good idea, because I've just said it. I don't need it repeated back to me.
Or:
Should I be flattered that other people are listening to what I say, and are picking up on it? Should I feel solace in the fact that people apparently think the same way I do?
Some guidance now would be nice...
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Distractions
People easily get distracted by news and events. As a prerequisite, the news must be of interest to them. There's also a hierarchy: if something bad happens, that's more interesting than if something happy occurs. Also something very far away (geographically), is less noteworthy than something close to home.
Unfortunately these matters of fact allow for some really strange observations.
For example, up until last night, no one in Italy (or Europe for that matter) spoke of the World Cup victory. Instead whatever it was that set Zidane to headbutting an opposing player was the focus of the news. And last night the relegations of Italy's Juventus, Lazio Roma and Fiorentina stole the limelight. None of this is really joyful, yet people like it so much they devote so much of their time on it.
Observation 1: since when is an (alleged) insult more important news than a team winning the biggest prize in their craft?
Another example. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon were momentarily headline news, even drawing the attention from one G.W. Bush from the United States. The next day it drew second billing to the annual local fish market survey.
Observation 2: since when is local non-threatening news more important than global life-threatening issues?
Human nature is to select (prioritize more like) what is of value to any individual and ignore the rest. There's simply no time to indulge into everything. This prioritization is quite pessimistic though. When people do something grand, others either put themselves down (I wouldn't be able to do that), or get jealous. A far smaller group is actually inspired by grand performances and strive to reach something similar. When something bad happens to people however, nearly everyone feels threatened. They could think it could happen to them (floods, fires, kidnappings, but also scam artists, high taxes, car accidents or noise violations).
Human nature is to judge the risk of something bad happening to themselves far higher than the risk of something good happening. People are driven to do everything in their power to survive, purely on instinct, but few are driven to make a quantum leap forward past that stage.
Lazy bastards.
Unfortunately these matters of fact allow for some really strange observations.
For example, up until last night, no one in Italy (or Europe for that matter) spoke of the World Cup victory. Instead whatever it was that set Zidane to headbutting an opposing player was the focus of the news. And last night the relegations of Italy's Juventus, Lazio Roma and Fiorentina stole the limelight. None of this is really joyful, yet people like it so much they devote so much of their time on it.
Observation 1: since when is an (alleged) insult more important news than a team winning the biggest prize in their craft?
Another example. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon were momentarily headline news, even drawing the attention from one G.W. Bush from the United States. The next day it drew second billing to the annual local fish market survey.
Observation 2: since when is local non-threatening news more important than global life-threatening issues?
Human nature is to select (prioritize more like) what is of value to any individual and ignore the rest. There's simply no time to indulge into everything. This prioritization is quite pessimistic though. When people do something grand, others either put themselves down (I wouldn't be able to do that), or get jealous. A far smaller group is actually inspired by grand performances and strive to reach something similar. When something bad happens to people however, nearly everyone feels threatened. They could think it could happen to them (floods, fires, kidnappings, but also scam artists, high taxes, car accidents or noise violations).
Human nature is to judge the risk of something bad happening to themselves far higher than the risk of something good happening. People are driven to do everything in their power to survive, purely on instinct, but few are driven to make a quantum leap forward past that stage.
Lazy bastards.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Selective hearing
This week I've been asked the question what my strengths were. One of those I've mentioned - from the top of my head - was being able to stay objective and calm longer than other people I know or work with (although if you saw me driving in the car, you would probably not share that opinion about me).
Staying objective and calm to me has nothing to do with a higher level of tolerance or inner peace, but more with distilling precisely that information which the broadcaster wants to spread. In my experience people rarely put into words exactly what they mean, because they tend to leave pauses in their sentences, stall to search their vocabularies, think about things again, speed up, slow down and so on. Whatever people want to share, is rarely what they say word for word.
Problem is, the audience doesn't take enough time to distill the deeper meaning from whatever is said. Therefore they fall into misinterpretations and in addition they fill-in whatever gaps exist with whatever they think is meant and stop there. The end result is that the audience gets angry because whatever was actually meant, did not match what they think was meant.
Objectivity and calmness comes from being able to accept that whatever is said, is not completely literally the message conveyed. People are fallible, people don't know, people lie. Accepting this fact allows you to be cautious and to truly think about the message. Eventually you get the closest to the original meaning of the messenger.
I'm not saying I'm a good listener. I'm actually quite dreadful at it. Listening is just as fallible as speaking. But I pick up on key words, ask the right questions to confirm any information gaps I may have, and I maintain a healthy neutral stance.
I can predict people's intentions quite well this way, and therefore never really complain. How can you complain if you are right?
Staying objective and calm to me has nothing to do with a higher level of tolerance or inner peace, but more with distilling precisely that information which the broadcaster wants to spread. In my experience people rarely put into words exactly what they mean, because they tend to leave pauses in their sentences, stall to search their vocabularies, think about things again, speed up, slow down and so on. Whatever people want to share, is rarely what they say word for word.
Problem is, the audience doesn't take enough time to distill the deeper meaning from whatever is said. Therefore they fall into misinterpretations and in addition they fill-in whatever gaps exist with whatever they think is meant and stop there. The end result is that the audience gets angry because whatever was actually meant, did not match what they think was meant.
Objectivity and calmness comes from being able to accept that whatever is said, is not completely literally the message conveyed. People are fallible, people don't know, people lie. Accepting this fact allows you to be cautious and to truly think about the message. Eventually you get the closest to the original meaning of the messenger.
I'm not saying I'm a good listener. I'm actually quite dreadful at it. Listening is just as fallible as speaking. But I pick up on key words, ask the right questions to confirm any information gaps I may have, and I maintain a healthy neutral stance.
I can predict people's intentions quite well this way, and therefore never really complain. How can you complain if you are right?
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Stop the group processes!
Impressive characters and commanding institutions have the ability to attract huge followings. Sometimes joining up requires very little effort, but there are instances where people have to give up something to be able to join. It might be a matter of principles, or a matter of cash, or something even more serious.
People simply have to join groups, follow leaders, belong. People need a sense of connection to other people, or else the loneliness would make them crazy. People need direction and stability to get themselves forward. Finally people need to feel safe, and there's definitely safety in numbers when you're part of the same group.
The danger in this is that one's responsibilities are diminished opposed to the purpose in the group. For fear of getting kicked out of the group or punishment, people may be dismissive regarding obvious weaknesses in the group. The very reason for the group to exist, is also its biggest threat: the inherent unwillingness to change and adapt to survive. Groups tend to reduce individualism to the point where it breeds only yes-men, followers and zealots.
The notion of people having original ideas, being unique characters and being a role-model is thrown out of the window in groups. That kind of defeats the purpose of building groups.
What's the main thing I want to say... groups are very much a part of our society. We don't survive without them. But we should be so strong that we know to own up for what we believe in, even if it is opposed to the group. We should take responsibility for our own actions, not hide behind group processes. Yes-men don't deserve any accolades.
People simply have to join groups, follow leaders, belong. People need a sense of connection to other people, or else the loneliness would make them crazy. People need direction and stability to get themselves forward. Finally people need to feel safe, and there's definitely safety in numbers when you're part of the same group.
The danger in this is that one's responsibilities are diminished opposed to the purpose in the group. For fear of getting kicked out of the group or punishment, people may be dismissive regarding obvious weaknesses in the group. The very reason for the group to exist, is also its biggest threat: the inherent unwillingness to change and adapt to survive. Groups tend to reduce individualism to the point where it breeds only yes-men, followers and zealots.
The notion of people having original ideas, being unique characters and being a role-model is thrown out of the window in groups. That kind of defeats the purpose of building groups.
What's the main thing I want to say... groups are very much a part of our society. We don't survive without them. But we should be so strong that we know to own up for what we believe in, even if it is opposed to the group. We should take responsibility for our own actions, not hide behind group processes. Yes-men don't deserve any accolades.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
A wallet full of ambitions
Way back I measured success as being extremely, wealthy rich. I still want to do a lot to get there, but my ambitions have their limits I realize. They stretch to the point where I am still confident about myself, comfortable in my surroundings and challenged just enough to not get complacent.
I realize other people have different limits set, up to the point where they objectively go farther, harder and faster to their goals, and with more dedication. Or the other way around, people who have more modest goals, and thus spend less time and effort to achieve them.
The degree of success thus has another dimension; how much can you achieve, given the ambition level you have? I guess the more you get and the less effort you spend, the better off you are, and thus the more successful.
I fully adhere to the notion that you need to spend something to get something. There’s always a cost involved. You don’t get something for nothing.
Whatever you are spending, whatever you are willing to spend, is key here. You can trade sleep, free time, morals, ideals for achievement of your goals. Some are willing to spend less, others more.
People with lots of talent can be more efficient, than people with little. Your currency so to speak depends on how you define yourself as a person. I personally emphasize being able to justify my actions to myself. I can play politics, but I keep it business. I can spend lots of time at work, as much at least as my body will let me. I prefer to think on my own, and be creative, rather than being thought for. I give proper respect to people who’ve helped, and inspired me. I don’t tell everything, because to reach a goal I am fully aware that sometimes silence and ignorance are more constructive.
These are my ground rules. Within these boundaries I have my wallet so to speak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)