The Context of Need: A Culture of Mediocrity
ege02
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
Disclaimer 1: I apologize for any insulting judgments I am about to pass.
Disclaimer 2: This is not necessarily just about America.
Disclaimer 3: This is not an advertisement thread. The links herein are included for the specific purpose of providing a background for and supporting the arguments in the thread.
Disclaimer 4: Unless you read the links provided, most of what I say, and most of what I say he (my source) says, will come across as a pointless no-brainer. So read the links if you'd like to have a firm grasp on the context of this discussion.
Disclaimer 5: The topic is potentially extremely broad. I don't think I'll be able to say everything I want to say in the OP, and I don't think I'll be able to say everything the way I want to say it. So bear with me please.
My biggest gripe about American culture is that it does not discourage people from mediocrity and under-achievement. A person can work at retail all their life, not even try to strive for something better, and the culture does not have a problem with this, because that person is happy and that is all that matters, right?
This is something I have been struggling with for a very long time, but could not put into words. So I was overjoyed when I found out that this guy has. I have linked his various articles on some other threads recently, so you might be somewhat familiar with him.
Among his hundreds of blogs, he has a series where he talks about "the purpose of life". Something that immediately invites skepticism just from the subject itself, admittedly. However, aside from suggesting several techniques one might use to help them discover their own purpose (some of them I have tried to various degrees of success), he talks about why having a purpose is important, and how not having one can limit one's true potential.
Why Does Purpose Matter?
(this is the most relevant link. there are others, which you can explore on your own if the subject interests you)
Basically, he says that most people operate within the context of need. This means that everything they do in life is motivated by their needs. They earn money for survival and security. They make friends to be social. They have children to replicate their genes. They learn additional skills to advance in their careers or social circles so they get better at addressing those needs.
And then, they stop there. They become content. Or even happy.
So there are several problems with this, he says:
1- People will not have any real incentives to improve their status because the motivation that their context provided to get them where they are right now will be non-existent; their needs will already have been met. At best, they will improve little by little, gradually, but any idea of real improvement, or change, will be met by the thought, "eh, why bother?"
2- Because of the nature of the context of need, some goals will be unattainable. Not only that, because those goals will not be supported by the context of need, they will not be set as goals in the first place. Whereas when you look at all the great people in history, Mother Theresa, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, etc. most if not all of them did the things they did not because they needed to, but because they were driven by something greater.
Now that I have sort of explained the background, I'd like to move this discussion forward a little, and present my argument.
I believe that we, as the Western civilization, have grown lazy.
We have some truly disturbing (in my humble opinion) trends in our society where mediocrity and under-achievement are culturally accepted. A person who never tries to do great things, who instead settles for the average or below average goals and lifestyle, is not looked down upon. In fact, such people are so common that they are accepted as the norm.
Whereas the fact of the matter is that we as humans have the freedom to achieve greatness, and definitely the ability to do so, as shown by the great people in our past and present. The problem is that we have no real incentive or motivation to do so.
But how can a culture, or even a species in its entirety, hope to improve itself, to evolve (not in the biological sense of the word) to the next level, if its members do not constantly push themselves to realize and work towards their potential?
How can that species, for example, spread across the galaxy if it looks at the Moon and says, "Meh, we don't need to go there"?
We are ultimately limited in our ability to do so not because of any natural limitation, but because of a limitation we place on ourselves: the limitation of addressing our needs and not going beyond that. Most of us don't even see this limitation (or see it as a limitation. doesn't matter.), and even if some do, they don't do anything about it, perhaps because they are lazy, or perhaps because they are scared of what they might become, or maybe because they have convinced themselves that as long as they are happy, it is all that matters.
My problem is that this seems to be ingrained in the culture.
Disclaimer 2: This is not necessarily just about America.
Disclaimer 3: This is not an advertisement thread. The links herein are included for the specific purpose of providing a background for and supporting the arguments in the thread.
Disclaimer 4: Unless you read the links provided, most of what I say, and most of what I say he (my source) says, will come across as a pointless no-brainer. So read the links if you'd like to have a firm grasp on the context of this discussion.
Disclaimer 5: The topic is potentially extremely broad. I don't think I'll be able to say everything I want to say in the OP, and I don't think I'll be able to say everything the way I want to say it. So bear with me please.
My biggest gripe about American culture is that it does not discourage people from mediocrity and under-achievement. A person can work at retail all their life, not even try to strive for something better, and the culture does not have a problem with this, because that person is happy and that is all that matters, right?
This is something I have been struggling with for a very long time, but could not put into words. So I was overjoyed when I found out that this guy has. I have linked his various articles on some other threads recently, so you might be somewhat familiar with him.
Among his hundreds of blogs, he has a series where he talks about "the purpose of life". Something that immediately invites skepticism just from the subject itself, admittedly. However, aside from suggesting several techniques one might use to help them discover their own purpose (some of them I have tried to various degrees of success), he talks about why having a purpose is important, and how not having one can limit one's true potential.
Why Does Purpose Matter?
(this is the most relevant link. there are others, which you can explore on your own if the subject interests you)
If you complete a task, and there’s no overall important context for that task, then the task doesn’t really matter. So you watch a TV show. It doesn’t make a difference — there’s no larger context for it. But if you complete a task that’s part of a larger project, now it suddenly matters, at least within the context of the project. If you create a web page, and it’s part of a new web site you’re building, that task matters. It takes you closer to the realization of the completed project.
Now when does a project matter? Projects matter only within the context of a larger goal. If your goal is to increase your income, and you complete a project that is likely to facilitate it, the project matters. It brings you a step closer to the realization of your goal. But if you complete a project like digging a trench through your backyard, and there’s no real goal you’re trying to accomplish, then the project is pointless. There’s no meaning behind it.
If a project isn’t part of some larger goal, then that project has no context and is therefore irrelevant. You don’t need a complicated goal to give meaning to a project. It could be something simple like increasing your happiness or even just entertaining you for a while. But human behavior is purposeful, and we humans don’t tend to undertake projects if there is no good reason for doing so. People don’t often work hard at digging holes and refilling them for no reason.
What’s the difference between projects and goals? Goals are outcomes, objectives. They’re states of being — a state where you’d like to be at some point. Projects are encapsulations of the actions you feel you can take to help you achieve a goal. Owning your own home is a goal. Writing a screenplay is a project.
So to reverse the order, you start by setting set some goals, create projects to achieve those goals, and perform tasks to complete those projects and thereby achieve your goals.
But now what’s the context for your goals? Why do they matter? If a task needs the context of a project and a project needs the context of a goal, don’t goals need a context as well in order for them to matter?
Basically, he says that most people operate within the context of need. This means that everything they do in life is motivated by their needs. They earn money for survival and security. They make friends to be social. They have children to replicate their genes. They learn additional skills to advance in their careers or social circles so they get better at addressing those needs.
And then, they stop there. They become content. Or even happy.
So there are several problems with this, he says:
1- People will not have any real incentives to improve their status because the motivation that their context provided to get them where they are right now will be non-existent; their needs will already have been met. At best, they will improve little by little, gradually, but any idea of real improvement, or change, will be met by the thought, "eh, why bother?"
2- Because of the nature of the context of need, some goals will be unattainable. Not only that, because those goals will not be supported by the context of need, they will not be set as goals in the first place. Whereas when you look at all the great people in history, Mother Theresa, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, etc. most if not all of them did the things they did not because they needed to, but because they were driven by something greater.
Now that I have sort of explained the background, I'd like to move this discussion forward a little, and present my argument.
I believe that we, as the Western civilization, have grown lazy.
We have some truly disturbing (in my humble opinion) trends in our society where mediocrity and under-achievement are culturally accepted. A person who never tries to do great things, who instead settles for the average or below average goals and lifestyle, is not looked down upon. In fact, such people are so common that they are accepted as the norm.
Whereas the fact of the matter is that we as humans have the freedom to achieve greatness, and definitely the ability to do so, as shown by the great people in our past and present. The problem is that we have no real incentive or motivation to do so.
But how can a culture, or even a species in its entirety, hope to improve itself, to evolve (not in the biological sense of the word) to the next level, if its members do not constantly push themselves to realize and work towards their potential?
How can that species, for example, spread across the galaxy if it looks at the Moon and says, "Meh, we don't need to go there"?
We are ultimately limited in our ability to do so not because of any natural limitation, but because of a limitation we place on ourselves: the limitation of addressing our needs and not going beyond that. Most of us don't even see this limitation (or see it as a limitation. doesn't matter.), and even if some do, they don't do anything about it, perhaps because they are lazy, or perhaps because they are scared of what they might become, or maybe because they have convinced themselves that as long as they are happy, it is all that matters.
My problem is that this seems to be ingrained in the culture.
ege02 on
0
Posts
I'm all for achievement, but you have to realize that the urge to go forth and conquer new vistas isn't required for happiness for all people.
Said people might be boring, but hey, if they're happy, they're HAPPY.
No.
That's me.
I never understood the point of saying crap like this. Average is acceptable? So what, now the majority of our population that can only actually reach average doesn't feel like shit, and that makes our society lazy?
I looked over the links, and it's more of the whole external/internal focus of control self help scams have been selling for years. "You're the captain of your own fate", "Set goals and you'll achieve them", so on and so on with the psycho babble.
You can't judge a society by it's least productive members (and I'm pretty sure I take issue with the whole "so few people are great" angle of your rant, since I'd love to see another society where there are more great people per capita, or hell, even a definition of great people).
As long as innovation, effort, and accomplishment are still rewarded and strived for by the population, I think we're doing just fine.
I don't have an issue with people being happy. Don't strawman please.
You're approaching the issue from, well, the wrong angle.
It's not about requirements for happiness. It's that seeking happiness for happiness's sake is a tremendous limiting belief on what people can truly achieve.
I don't have a problem with them being happy.
Did you even read the article?
Why is it all worth more than being content or happy?
Majority of our population that can only actually reach average? How do you know that that's the maximum they can reach? My point is that most people don't even try.
I think you're a little hasty with the judgment.
Most great people in history weren't American. Is that what you mean, or did I misunderstand?
Yes, exactly! "We are doing just fine" is such a stupid thing to say. Another great example of settling for average, when better is no doubt possible.
It was a crappy article that mostly suggested that the guy isn't very literate or aware (Jesus, Mother Theresa, Gandhi? OY), or is assuming his readers are all such.
The guy never really covered why you should give a rats ass about going through this "purpose" process.
Sometimes simply enjoying the world is someone's "purpose."
This leaves less energy for improvement on the system. This contradicts the trend of exponentially increasing advances in technology, medicine, and so forth in recent centuries, right? Except that, prior to the industrial revolution, humanity lived a very natural life. Despite moving from caves to castles, from clubs to crossbows, and from herbs to... blood letting, nothing we really did was "unnatural." Electronics and machinery aren't found in the natural world. Human beings aren't blessed with these things naturally, and so we have to spend a lot of time and effort towards having them.
That is what I am questioning as well. That is why I made this thread.
I doubt anyone on this forum is in this particular position, and even for those people who do work retail all their lives, I doubt that they become vapid drones like you seem to be implying. I'm sure they have hopes and aspirations all their own, and I'm sure they all have something they're constantly striving for and developing themselves for, even if what they're striving for doesn't lie within their career path. I'd love for someone in such a position to weigh in here.
Edit:
By definition of "average" lawl (I know what you're saying - just wanted to point that out).
All that lovely drinking/drugging themselves in to a hole and committing suicide that they tend to do.
--
There's also the fact that most progress is going to help other people, and not everyone likes or trusts said people; one of the reasons I went in to English is because it's about the only area I could see myself not having to ignore my ethics.
Actually, their lives are probably as appealing as anyone elses, if you average it out. For every Van Gogh there's a Francis Drake.
edit: Not to mention all the artists who got fame and recognition while alive (especially painters, musicians, etc who relied on patronage and lived pretty well compared to everyone else).
So you don't believe those were great people, or what?
You don't have to. I provided the link mainly because it provides the background for my argument.
That is just great.
Incremental advancements. You're drawing a black/white distinction where everything that isn't great is useless. Great leaps don't make a journey, single steps do.
Reasons? Examples? Support?
I perceive the exact opposite. American culture, particularly youth culture, values great deeds over good almost to an unhealthy point. For instance, everybody in my high school was going to be a Pasteur, an Edison, a Warhol, a Kennedy, or a Mozart. And when these future movers and shakers didn't grow up to be the great inventors or scientists or artists they were expecting to be, they gave up and became receptionists and salesmen.
That's what drives me nuts, BTW, about arguments like these. It rests on the dominant paradigm being X, where X is just one person's perception. Not everybody, not even a majority, thinks the way you think they think. Parse that?
In any case, leaps of genius can't be predicted, so the most good overall comes from those who strive to put in a consistent effort every day.
Buddha laughs at your examples.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Still, I wouldn't trade places with Alexander the Great or Abe Lincoln. I mean if you thought Bush was controversial, at least his election didn't spark a civil war. And even if it did, Lincoln still had it rougher.
As for Alexander, dying in his 30s? I don't care if history remembers my name until the end of time, what will it matter if I'm dead? I'd rather live long and obscure. Fuck Achilles and William Wallace.
Because that's the definition of average. As in, the state above which half of the group can not go? Completely leaving aside the fact level of accomplishment is entirely relative, who the hell are you or anyone else to tell people they aren't accomplishing enough?
On what grounds is it exactly that you feel qualified to judge the majority of a society as not trying hard enough, or not succeeding? What exactly have you done in your life that's so great that you can afford to look down on how people chose to live their lives? If you chose to put forward a dickish and judgmental position, you woudl be well advised to be above reproahc yourself.
No, the more I look at it the more it's clear this guy is full of shit. You aren't really happy unless you met whatever criteria I feel like setting for whatever happy really is! You have to be a part of something bigger than yourself, ra ra ra. So on and so forth. It's a waste of time, preying on people who feel their life hasn't worked out as well as it could have.
I was actually referring to the number of researchers, professors, doctors, people who you would call "great" we have relative to America's population. We represent a lion's share of technical and intellectual innovation in the world given our relatively small percentage of population. There are certainly other factors involved, but if you expect me to buy "Americans are lazy" you need to come at me with something better than "Look at how many people are only average!".
And this is just fucking stupid. You don't need to constantly think you aren't doing enough to actually do enough, let alone the fact there is no such measure as enough when it comes to society's accomplishments. A person is relatively free to accomplish as much as they want to in America, at least more so than in most other societies in the world. By what criteria exactly do you feel qualified to tell people they should hate themselves for not all being amazing rock stars/scientists/doctors/lawyers/super-dooper people?
Jesus was an asshole who wanted his ass kissed, Ma Terry caused lots of harm because she thought that the suffering of the poor was holy, and Gandhi was a fucking -freak- about sexuality.
You should maybe consider that absence.
Yep.
It's a damned fine goal.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Actually being a "freak about sexuality" doesn't seem that hypocritical. His main thing was non-violence, so unless he was BDSM freaky, I don't see the contradiction.
Yeah, (to ege) have you ever heard of something called the American dream? If anything, people spend too much time aspriring to be something great. I would say that perfection, fame, and changing the world should not be the standard on which we judge people, because honestly it is unrealistic. Instead of all of us trying to become NBA sports players or scientists that make earthshaking discoveries, we should strive to have more realistic goals. The nature of greatness is that only a few achieve it.
I find trying to sharpen the mind, sharpen character, figure the world out on an individual scale, and live an examined life to be much more interesting (and doable) goals. None of those are going to change the world, but they will certainly have a profound impact on one's own world.
He used to sleep next to his naked nieces to test his mettle, and he spazzed when he had a wet dream later in life.
Dude was a whackjob.
But a society of leaders can't function. If everyone were a leader then I think civilization would collapse.
He wasn't applying for sainthood. And he got the job done. The British pulled out, the country split, he got assassinated in typical martyr fashion and many Indians today couldn't give two shits about him or his legacy.
Sounds like an average, shitty human existence.
The point was that I wouldn't exactly inspire to live that kind of life.
We have pills for that sort of thing now.
Ignoring the topic at hand, I HATE it when somebody suggests an idea and people reply with "looks like somebody's been ____ too much ____!"
In this case, the connection to Brave New World was too obvious for me to ignore.
I'm starting to see though how it sort of evens out. If you want to live a decent life, stay obscure, strive for medicocrity. If you want a shot at "greatness", you either have to do something historically exceptional and then die, or historically notorious and get away with it. And still, no guarantees. Since people are starting to realize that the prospect of an afterlife is "a pretty big if", mediocrity and comfort seem the way to go. Hey, hey. I solved edge's little riddle.
Looks like somebody's been smoking too much hash!
EDIT: Didn't want to double post.