But how do you know whether you’ve really fulfilled your personal potential? I’m actually asking this sincerely.
By all conventional and non-conventional indicators, I’m a pretty damn successful person. But success has never been my goal, per se. Doing what I want to do has been my goal. One might say my goals would be a stretch for the average person, and I wouldn’t disagree. But is difficulty and rarity a requirement for success? I don’t think it has to be, and that seems to be what is implied by the article.
I don’t think that’s what people are saying. The point is that it’s laughable to lump people into two classes labeled “Successes” and “Not Successes”. You can be a success at some things while sucking at other things. Our society unfortunately promotes the view that as long as you succeed at making money and having status, then that is all that matters. But it doesn’t.
If surrounding yourself by “high frequency” people means you have to alienate “low frequency” loved ones–the people who wiped your butt when you were little and would tolerate wiping it if you were to become an invalid–then what are you really gaining in life, really?
Agree with you with the face that that is a misread. There is a theme perhaps that the drivel the op links to would have people make such a choice and that it seems to have a very narrow view of what is worthwhile to be motivated about.
It seems to be neglecting that the very first bar to be motivated to reach in order for most of us to consider ourselves successful is to be able to feel we have been and are good people, treating others with respect and proud of our decisions.
If the point is merely that achieving goals requires deciding which ones to set, having them be ones that are perhaps ambitious but achievable (if barely) for who we are and the resources at our disposal, sacrificing some in order to achieve them, keeping up self-discipline knowing that gratification may be delayed as a result of the pursuit, and keeping a focus on them … well boy that’s news. Seriously I think most younger people get that too.
A separate but related question is when should what sort of goals be set? Does an 18 year old need their long term career goal defined?
I don’t think this is a fair characterization of people on the “unsuccessful side”. I think most people readily acknowledge they have some locus of control. But people are risk averse, and self-investment is inherently risky–financially, emotionally, and socially. Like, it is easy to tell someone to ghost all the “low-frequency” people in their life. But loneliness sucks. Avoiding “low frequency” people does not guarantee you’ll suddenly become attractive to the “high frequency”. And then there’s the fact that every decision has an opportunity cost. It is hard to learn a skill and become good enough at it to be marketable without laying out money and time. Money and time that might be better spent on more immediate concerns. “Follow your dreams” is only good advice when you’re in a financially stable situation and can afford to take risks.
I don’t know what you mean by a “natural” definition of success. In nature, a successful popuation is one that is self-sustaining–which is a pretty high bar given all the ecological forces that a population has to contend with. My WAG is that the universal definition of a successful person is someone who is able to take care of all of their needs and most of their wants. I don’t think people care about reaching their “potential”. They do care about getting what they need and want, though.
To broadly if crudely address several responses to my posts, I’ll drag out another social science standard, ‘Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs’.
It’s limited like any such general framework, but a lot of the push back seems me to focus on the difficulty of defining ‘success’ at or near the top of the pyramid, ‘self actualization’, etc. Maybe my use of the word ‘personal potential’ led seemed to mean that, but it’s not what I meant. Further down it’s less touchy feely. Further down it’s easier to analyze with a fairly simple question, not necessarily simple accounting but simple conceptually, like ‘do you rely on family or the state to support you when you’re capable of doing it yourself?’, simply do you pull your own weight? A lot of people don’t. To me msmith537’s list was a recipe for pulling your own weight, and I agree with it. Whether deep in your mind you’ve reached ‘potential’ in some abstract way is important to each person, but not what I was talking about, since not what ms’ list was about. And I already said I think the article’s delivery is offputting.
My opinion remains that it’s more of a problem in US society of people trying to convince themselves their shortcomings are ‘the system’s’ or ‘life’s’ fault when some or even most are really their shortcomings they could work on, than the supposed problem of successful people who won’t admit luck is partly responsible for their success. The former is a much bigger negative macro-wise. And the question of ‘what’s success?’ while complicated in the inner life of the mind, has some simpler parameters at the lower level of one’s place in society, IMO.
Although micro-wise it’s not always a negative. It’s not really that plausible IMO/IME to say that people in US society who get up early, work out, study in their spare time, push, push, push, etc. often still don’t succeed (basically, lower down the pyramid). Sometimes they don’t of course, if you get hit by a bus that’s it, and lots of other stuff…but usually they do. And one reason they usually do is there are so many slackers it’s easy to get past, in a society with a lot of rewards out there to grasp. If everybody was a go getter, it would be harder to make progress just by hard work.
I don’t agree. I think it is crazy to believe the root cause of the “not haves” is that they won’t accept responsibility for their lives given that most of the “not haves” are practitioners of a religion that espouses self-agency and a whole lot think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionares. I think the problem is that “haves” put too much emphasis on individual responsibility, as if the choices people make arise in a vacuum rather than a mileu. People don’t make poor choices because they are lazy or stupid. They make poor choices because their circumstances make it difficult to make better choices.
If all the “haves” vote to get rid of publically-supported mental health services so we can have more money to build walls and prisons, then how do the “not haves” lift themselves out of a self-destructive loop of maladaptive coping mechanisms? If all the “haves” vote to defund public colleges, student loan programs, public libraries, etc., how do the “not haves” acquire new skills? If all the “haves” think public transportion is horrible because its brings in criminals and destroys property values, then why should “not haves” even bother looking for jobs outside of their desolate neighborhoods?
The degree of upward mobility in the lower classes is directly proportional to how much the upper classes cleave to the notion of Fair World–where everyone can be successful just by working real hard. When policy is written from a Fair World perspective, social welfare becomes stigmitized and associated with the lazy and immoral. Social welfare is absolutely necessary for upward mobility, but the “haves” have historically believed otherwise. This alone explains why the US sucks compared to other developed countries, IMHO.
Cite? I mean, this SOUNDS good. But it seems way too pat for me.
What I believe: The successful tend to have certain habits that we attribute to the successful. Like, I rarely see people jogging around in poor neighborhoods, but they are all over the place in rich neighborhoods. I rarely see morbidly obese people in the latter, but they are all over the place in the former. But what is driving what? I know that for me, a single childless professional, it is kind of easy for me to devote two hours every day to exercise. But I know wouldn’t be so disciplined if I worked a physical job with long hours, lived in an unsafe neighborhood, and was burdened by family obligations. It would not be correct to conclude my exercise regime is a driver of my success. Not from the available data, at least.
I would tell someone to exercise because it has enormous health benefits–including mental health. I would not tell them it will make them more successful, though, unless I’m using a definition of success that is really weird and subjective.
Seems such a rather low bar to be calling success, though. I mean, it doesn’t take a high quality diet or high frequency friends to merely be self-sufficient. You dont have to even be particularly full of agency.
There may be a selection bias at work here Corry. I’d venture a guess that the majority who post here would be judged to be “successful” by at least some broad group of the usual yardsticks. They have responded not with some hypothetical thoughts but with some self-reflection of how that occurred. Did they select their friends based on the contributions their friends could make to their success and only focus on the highest possible nutrition from day one to get there? Mostly I think not. They do the mundane every day.
We are an honest bunch mostly. I am by most reasonable metrics a successful individual and I know that I am lucky as can be. I had opportunities that many can only dream of. Yes I applied myself to them; I do not begrudge myself some credit. And some degree the bar to judge myself a success is higher because I know I started off with being dealt into a middle class household that valued education and supported it and lucked into a career path that was a perfect fit for who I am. I am more impressed with my Dad’s having scrapped his way into the middle class than I am with my higher education and professional career.
The reality simply is that not everyone will get the same chances in life and for some the the deck is stacked against that traditionally defined “success”. Not everyone can have that no matter how hard they apply themselves. The converse though is more true. No matter what the opportunities you are given it is possible to fail.
The friend who filled every waking moment with activity. Work, multiple hobby organizations, gaming, etc. If he wasn’t busy, he thought he was just wasting time.
The boss who is married with kids yet thinks he’s successful because he’s a manager who works 90-100 hours a week, occasionally shows up to help his kid’s baseball team and sits on the company charity committee.
When I’m in a spot where I’m enjoying life, relaxing a lot, have a couple of friends I see now and again and I’m not too stressed out by work - that to me is success. That’s the stillness I seek, not the sea of frenetic activity.
No we don’t agree and are I believe it unlikely we’ll make further progress toward it. Again you set up the straw man, IMO, of ‘Fair World where everyone can be successful just by working hard’. Never said it.
And I also simply don’t agree with analyzing an article like that in terms of the politics of social policy. In the system as it exists is it very important to adopt ‘upper middle class’ attitudes to advance? Simple practical answer IME: yes. Is there a some design of society where they would not be true. Maybe hypothetically, but it’s not ours (US society I’m assuming but in other Western, or Confucian, rich societies not basically different).
And it doesn’t in any way refute that to say one sees more people in some neighborhoods exercising early or any other general manifestations of this attitude. That point of yours seems to contradict your skepticism, asking for ‘cite’, for my statement there are lots of slackers and that can make it easier for individual hard workers to get ahead though it’s not good for society overall. You seem to realize this is true.
Is it easier or harder for a person of given ability get into the top 10% of their HS class, gain admission to top state U’s in some states by doing that, in highly competitive upper middle class suburban HS or inner city one, just by working their tails off, in general? I think it’s pretty obvious: hard work is going to pay off more easily relatively where it’s not as much the norm. Forget casting blame, forget coming up with theories why social factors ‘make’ some people work harder so it’s not really to their ‘credit’ that they do. Just consider one person making their own choice in the world as it is to work their tail off or not.
Same token, one individual person adopts msmith’s list (forget the article). Will it make it more likely they achieve ‘success’ (bottom to middle parts of the ‘pyramid’, the top is much more subjective and ethereal)? IMO, obviously yes. And that’s my only point.
Some of this discussion reminds me of thoughts I had about this Onion article. I mean, sure, THE WORLD was deprived of this great musical genius, but her actual life doesn’t sound all that bad, and it’s one she wouldn’t have had as an international celebrity. If she loved her life and family, who cares about what THE WORLD missed out on?
What I believe: The successful tend to have certain habits that we attribute to the successful. Like, I rarely see people jogging around in poor neighborhoods, but they are all over the place in rich neighborhoods. I rarely see morbidly obese people in the latter, but they are all over the place in the former. But what is driving what? I know that for me, a single childless professional, it is kind of easy for me to devote two hours every day to exercise. But I know wouldn’t be so disciplined if I worked a physical job with long hours, lived in an unsafe neighborhood, and was burdened by family obligations. It would not be correct to conclude my exercise regime is a driver of my success. Not from the available data, at least.
[/quote]
I suppose there is some truth in that. In my corporate jobs, value is often placed on executives and managers who have esoteric hobbies like running marathons or triathlons or going on sabbaticals to climb Everest that demonstrate the qualities the firm imagines to value. I say “imagines” because I see an inherent irony in hiring Olympic athletes, former military officers, marathon runners, triathletes, former Broadway stars and other people of an “exceptional” overachieving nature because you “want well rounded individuals, not one dimensional nerds”, but then force them to work 100 hours a week and turn them into the very nerds you didn’t want to hire in the first place!
IOW, it’s more of a correlation than a causality. These firms hiring people who have showed success in other areas irrelevant to accounting or law or tech because it presents an aura of success. Not that it makes them better accountants, lawyers or software engineers.
“You don’t need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin. He’s broke and he don’t do shit.”
According to most of the research I’ve seen, it turns out other people have different interests and motivators from you or I. Maybe your friend likes always being busy with his hobbies and career? Maybe your boss cares more about his work than his kids baseball game that no one will remember in a week?
I think it’s up to each individual to decide what combination of income, leisure time, relationships and activities defines “success” for them. Some people don’t care about having a “career” beyond being able to afford a comfortable lifestyle for their family. Others are singularly driven by financial success. One isn’t any more or less valid than the other.
I think you are mistaken about the wanting well rounded individuals. Having done any of those things are not a markers of being well rounded. They are markers for individuals who set goals high and have the ability to narrow their focus to achieving them with persistence and tenacity, individuals driven to be not only the best they can be but the best period. No one gets to very high levels in those things without having to have made sacrifices in pursuit of their goals and for most having to persevere against a variety of setbacks. For many achieving the goal has also required being able to work as part of a team. The aim is to have a well rounded team of individuals who are not well rounded themselves but all of who are proven at setting their individual narrow bars high and hitting their marks, all of whom are competitive bastards, and getting them to apply that focus and competitive spirit to the company’s team.
The crux of this glurge is who is defining what low and high quality are, and what constitutes success.
Some people are fulfilled working 9 to 5 and watching sports all weekend. Some people make six figures and sit in board rooms and consider themselves failures.
The whole thing also essentially amounts to circular reasoning. If you do things that result in “success” (as defined by the author) you will be successful. Pretty banal.
Exactly,
Do you know the #1 determining factor of whether you are going to be wealthy at 40 is?
The wealth of your parents when you were growing up. And not from inheritance either. Anyone could easily succeed if they had the grease of wealth smoothing the way for them through life.
You go to the best schools, and even if you learn nothing, you get good enough grades to get into the best colleges. Where, even if you learn nothing, you get a piece of paper that is a pass to the corner office. Your relative’s friends then make sure you get the interview and often even the job. Then you mismanage a bunch of “unsuccessful” staff until retirement. Blaming them for your mistakes.
You would be amazed how many incompetent MBAs there are in the world hauling down the big bucks, and “successful” enough even for the author of this nonsense.
Nonsense, reading crap and watching crap have exactly the same impact. The same is true of watching quality content and reading quality content. There is nothing magically toxic about video or magically redeeming about print.
As someone who didn’t grow up wealthy, but who went to high school with quite a few relatively wealthy people, it isn’t the ‘grease of wealth’ that does the trick for these people. Very little of what these guys I went to high school ended up with is done via paying for it- it’s not the schools they went to (many went to unspectacular schools, FYI), it’s not their wealth itself.
What makes the differnece is the connections. If your parents are wealthy, and hang around with other wealthy people, it’s a whole lot easier and more likely that you’ll be in college, and run into some friend of your friends’ parents at a Xmas party and find out that rich guy with 2 degrees of separation is looking to hire a college grad for some sort of plum position, and is willing to interview you (and likely just hire you outright).
Or in some cases, they inherit or get jobs in the family company, which isn’t the same thing, but is where the real wealthy people I know got their start.
But as far as the success/failure dichotomy and the driven types; I knew several in college who were that way- school fiends, marathon runners, involved in a million things. Know what motivated them? Fear that somehow they’d fail or that someone would consider them less than totally successful. It was a real revelation to me to realize that they were more or less constantly terrified, while I, having failed various things many times, was much less concerned with the prospect; I knew it was about the getting up, not the falling down.
