If it’s something happening at your current job it could be as simple as “Joe is so good at what he does, let us not move him out of there because we’d need five people to replace him!”, which may or may not be solved by changing companies. That’s actually a well-known high-performer’s problem, along with its opposite: being promoted out of technical work (or sales, or whatever) and into management and discovering you hate management.
Because earning a decent salary as an “associate” doesn’t make someone any less frustrated when they don’t make partner at their law firm.
So the trick to not being a loser is to be satisfied with your loserness?
The trick to not being a loser is figuring out what you really want and whether you really can and will do what it takes to get it.
And that has very little to do with any “peer group” defined before and without figuring what is it you really want. The immense majority of the people who want the same kind of things I want are a different gender, different nationalities, have different educational backgrounds from me and a very different family life, what with them being married men with children and me being a never-married childless woman. If I define my peer group by my cousins that includes a middle school dropout and a high school dropout; if I define it by the people I went to college with, well, by definition there were no middle school dropouts there. If I define it by the people whose lifestyle goals are similar to mine, I end up with a bunch of married guys.
I’m a loser.
I started life with a heap of opportunities that I didn’t take advantage of when I should have.
I had kids with a ‘loser’ husband who didn’t take advantage of similar opportunities when he should have.
Forty years later, he’s deceased, and I am looking forward to a poverty-level existence on the Aged Pension. I’m still working now though (minimum wage) and getting by. Enough to go on vacation a couple of times a year. I am doing it while I can…another 5-10 years and I’ll probably be too old to go va-ca by myself. Or dead. One or the other.
No, that’s the way to convince yourself you will never amount to anything so you might as well just crawl under a rock as not to bother anyone.
What I meant was that if you look at yourself as a loser, you will be a loser. When you are trying to compare yourself to others who have talents and skills you lack, you will naturally come up short. Of course, in making this comparison, one will often ignore those things that make one outstanding in their own right as well as the negative attributes of those they are comparing.
The trick is to not spend your time worrying about having a big mansion or fancy new sports car, but to accomplish those things you can with the abilities you have. The fact that someone else has things that you covet more than what you have is no only irrelevant to what you are capable of doing, but is also something that only you can do about.
To want to be an NBA star is a fine ambition. To forever consider yourself a failure because you’re only 5’ 3" tall and can’t chew gum and walk without tripping over a shadow is a problem that only you can do something about.
That’s a big part of it. The rest is learning to be comfortable with those things you are capable of doing and willing to do. If you only focus on attaining things you never will accomplish, it is easy to view yourself as a loser.
Because “doing everything right” implies there’s a future guaranteed outcome to a certain set of achievements. There’s no such thing. One can learn and adapt, though, when they hit a wall. Or stagnate.
I agree with that too. My girlfriend’s brother is in a similar situation, where despite being the top talent at his company, not being white means he will never get promoted. It fucking sucks. It’s not legal or fair. I know he finds it frustrating as hell. But it doesn’t make him a loser, because he refuses to be a loser even when he’s objectively losing.
Added on Preview: I also had a bit here where I refuted someone claiming my post was guilty of the fallacy of relative privation, but that post seems to have vanished while I was writing. I decided to edit that part out instead of looking crazier than usual for arguing with someone who isn’t there.
All I could think of for this thread was a line from Infinity War: “I know what it’s like to lose. To feel so desperately that you’re right, yet to fail nonetheless. Dread it. Run from it. Destiny still arrives.”
Not getting what you want does not make you a loser.
It can mean you’re sad and frustrated and disillusioned about life.
But IMHO, a “loser” is someone who has no worth or value to anyone–including him or herself. There are lots of people who are in this situation. I doubt the OP is one of them.
I don’t think the OP needs to be shamed for his feelings. It sucks working hard to advance your career and not feeling like you’re getting anywhere, and it’s wrong for people to act like the OP is an ingrate just for being unhappy. But we can and should argue against the “loser” label that OP has given himself. With all the real losers out there who are intent on dragging else everyone down, no one who is reasonably law-abiding and self-supporting qualifies as a loser. So at a bare minimum, I encourage the OP to come up with another descriptor for himself. Anything would be better than “loser”.
By this perspective nobody who is drawing a wage is a loser - somebody demonstrably thinks they and their labors have some value, if not very much.
I can’t tell if you’re arguing with this definition or agreeing with it.
I’m questioning whether he means it, which I guess is disagreeing. My impression about the vague consensus regarding the definition of ‘loser’ is that it doesn’t exclude people who are working occasional odd jobs, or even people who are lazily working a steady minimum wage position in a half-assed way while living on somebody else’s couch and blowing their wage on beer. The impression I’ve got of loserhood is that you’re a perpetual multifaced drain on the people who try to help you (multifaced = financial, emotional, timewise) with no apparent effort being made to change that fact. That’s a harder bar to cross than just “not being completely worthless to literally everyone”.
I wasn’t giving the vague consensus of “loser”, but rather my own personal definition. I’m really not a fan of what most people think on the subject.
Sure, if someone is clearly doing the absolute bare minimum of what they are capable of, I probably wouldn’t hesitate to call them “loser”. I am also fine with just calling them a lazy moocher since that’s a lot more specific. “Loser” connotes a permanent condition resulting from a deep-seated character defect. “Lazy” is often a temporary state.
My point is that the OP doesn’t meet any reasonable definition of “loser”.
Because what they want from life doesn’t necessarily meet society’s ideas of success? Also, I’ve come across this quote that makes a lot of sense to me:
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
I think this applies here well. Perhaps, these people are quite happy leading their small lives and define success differently.
Realistically only a small % of people are going to be successful in any endeavor. Only a small % of people are attractive. Only a small % of people have truly successful careers within their field. Only a small % of people have great interpersonal relationships.
The % of lawyers who make senior partner is tiny.
Part of life is just having realistic standards. Always wanting to be in the best 10% is going to be a recipe for misery because 90% of people aren’t in that fraction.
Yep and it’s important to note that it’s relative, and we always select a minority.
Want to learn to play the piano? It’s easy – you could probably play “Twinkle, twinkle little star” within a hour of never having sat in front of a piano before*.
Unfortunately, no-one will care. You’ve got to be among the best for it to count for anything, so that means dedicating your life, and the vast majority who try will fail
(conversely, if there was a method by which we could teach complex piano playing super fast, the skill would also lose all value).
- OK not a version with an elaborate accompaniment
Similarly on wealth. We’re of course materially far better off than previous generations, or even the kings of yesteryear, but that doesn’t matter because we instinctively want to compare our car to the others on the street.
There’s nothing wrong with being competitive, just as long as you understand it’s an arbitrary standard we set for ourselves. And not being a “winner” at some particular thing does not make you a “loser” in general.
This is a good post.
Part of life is also not putting one’s ego all in one basket. Feeling “meh” about one’s career should direct a person to seek “yay!” in other areas. Years ago when I was feeling “meh” about my job, I spent almost all of my free time nurturing my inner artist and in doing so was able to develop an enormous amount of self-esteem --which probably helped me to turn my career around (and now I don’t do the art thing any more, go figure). If the OP wishes to exert his leadership abilities, he can form a Meet-up group devoted to an issue he cares about. Or he can nurture his inner teacher by create a website that offers helpful tips and tricks. If he wishes to show off his inner performer, he can create YouTube videos. There are so many places and venues nowadays where a person can find personal achievement.
No one needs to plaster on a fake happy face and punish themselves for not being positive enough. I think a little angst and jealousy can motivate someone to keep trucking. But I think someone who believes himself to be a loser can and should push back against this notion. And they can do this by switching gears. Not just mentally, but behaviorally. I think the behavioral component is more important than the mental one.
Right- “loser” implies a pattern of events and behavior that precludes any success.
In other words, trying and failing doesn’t make one a loser. Trying and failing continually and NEVER winning may, especially if one isn’t exactly shooting for the moon. So does never trying, or trying half-assedly.
I have a mental image of a “loser” in my head, and it’s basically a guy who through sloth, incompetence or timidity has never managed to capitalize on anything good that came his way or change his life trajectory, despite being dissatisfied with his lot in life. That dissatisfaction is key; I wouldn’t call a happy beach bum a loser, as long as he’s happy with where he’s at and not desperately wishing to be something else. But I might the 55 year old associate at a law firm who wants to be partner, but just can’t pull it off, despite bucking for it multiple times.
I agree - he doesn’t.
I disagree about the dissatisfaction thing - as you say the ‘loser’ definition implies something intrinsic, and thus it doesn’t make sense to pin it to a person’s transient mood. I’d call it more an attitude thing; the slacker who does things half-assedly and not only never accomplishes anything, but never tries to accomplish anything, and in doing so is a burden on those around him because he doesn’t rise even to the level of baseline self-sufficiency without having demonstrated that he has no choice but to be that way.
The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the average loser probably isn’t particularly dissatisfied with their life. They’re coasting, and while they might bitch a bit about how hard things are as a thin justification for their inaction, they clearly aren’t bothered enough to actually get off their butts and try. If somebody was making a concerted effort to improve themselves I probably wouldn’t call them a loser, unless they were going about it in some kind of spectacularly moronic way or something triggering an alternate definition of the term.
I wouldn’t call the law guy a loser, but I might call the beach bum one, if he’s enough of a careless drag on his associates.