I would call it "being different" in the age of "crowds' standards". Really, what people need to realize is that everybody is different from others in at least one respect. Striving to become an "alpha" is like trying to win other peoples' game: the rules of this game are written by other people and there are already some who are far ahead of the others in this game. As a result, chances of winning in other peoples' game are pretty slim. That's why it pays to be different, in an age that promotes some widely accepted standard as being the right one (the "alpha").
Insightful comment. Similarly, competitive people prefer and create highly structured environments and situations, where it is clear what to min-max for and where they stand on the highscore list. Nuance and soft qualities go out the window that way, but others can balance that out at some cost.
Rising to power requires one to rise within a system designed and molded by those whom preceded them. And, more than likely, that system becomes inherently bias towards the types of people that have risen to that power.
The people in a social power position are able to use their influence to unilaterally market their subjective reasoning as fact to the greater society. So, being born, raised, and living in a society subjects us to predetermined social standards based on precedence. Not on merit or objective value.
There is nothing wrong with being average. You should have enough energy to swim above the event horizon, where bad things happen (i.e. financial instability and job insecurity, the root of all evil).
If you don't have the motivation to be excellent, don't try. There really is no point to it, as the author pointed out. Excellent people have an inner "drive" to get there and they seek tremendous joy from walking that path. If you force yourself to do it, you will always be unhappy and your brain won't be able to compete no matter how much you try because there is nothing more important for success than this: You need to love what you do. But also, you need to be at the right time in the right place, have the right environment to strive and parents who have the ability to support you.
Being above financial instability and job insecurity is a good thing. It doesn't follow that the average person having a stable life means that the world is cruel and unfair.
> If you force yourself to do it, you will always be unhappy and your brain won't be able to compete no matter how much you try
the problem is that people don't want the actual excellence - they want the prestige and reward for being excellent. They want the money, financial gains and status. Most people are unhappy doing what they do, but they see it as a way to achieve said status.
If you already have something you love doing, and is doing it with secure financials, you're already ahead of the game imho.
What makes you believe that all excellent people love what they do, are happy and seek joy in what they do? My impression from reading successful people's autobiographies and their biographies is that they're very much human - plagued by doubts, uncertainty and the pressure to succeed.
I generally agree with your comment, but I think it could use further elaboration. This is going to sound ridiculously obvious, but obviously it isn't: most things in life are a lot more complicated than we think. Like what it means to be "excellent" or "average".
There are a lot of people who are viewed as excellent and yes, it often takes tremendous drive to get where they are (sometimes luck plays a bigger role), but how excellent are they really? Your suggestion that "they seek tremendous joy from walking that path" may work for some, but certainly not for all. A lot of the high achievers that I've known are relentlessly driven to the brink of mental or physical self-destruction. They may be proud of their success, but they don't seem to be joyful people. They may feel good when comparing themselves to someone like me, but they tend to compare themselves to people who are more successful than themselves, creating a vicious cycle of demanding higher achievment for themselves, yet never being satisfied by it. They concentrate on their careers at the expense of their families, so they have a lot of familial strife. Their spouses and children are virtual strangers. Then can't connect with them emotionally because that's a beta trait. On the other hand, I've known high achievers who are very happy, loving people. Are the former types really excellent? It depends on where we place our priorities, but as a culture (in the US), we tend to view ruthless, self-obsessed near-madmen as excellent.
What's average? Inevitably, it's someone who hasn't made a lot of money or grown high on a career ladder, or who hasn't had a large presence in helping people outside of his or her immediate social circle. In this last case, how wide does the circle have to be to elevate the person from average to excellent? Can an aide who works with disabled children in a high school be considered excellent? She's just a regular person with a below average income. But she may be inspiring because she's loving and thoughtful and thought-provoking. Her presence in the lives of her student may be the single most positive thing in their lives, but that impact is within a very small social circle. But then again, her small social circle of impact can include one person who goes on to have a tremendous impact on a large number of people. Does that now make her excellent?
Contentment with our lot seems to be one of the most underrated of human achievements and it can be well within the reach of the average person and far beyond the reach of the person of excellence.
Maybe intelligence has led to higher stress as we can better recognize what competence looks like and thus what to aim after. So everyone knows what it is better and they all want it, because they know it means the best chances at evolutionary success, regardless of whether the individual is capable of actually reaching that level of competence.
In games you can see this competitive struggle and meta forcing and how dare you stray from obviously the best strategy. I believe there are correlates everywhere there is a hierachy of competence.
There are certain jobs and specializations in which you can't just be average. You can find a place as an average doctor, but maybe not in neurosurgery.
But the real problem is "categorizing" people. You can't know whether someone is cut out for something unless they try, and America in particular does not like that kind of progression (after all, you can't try every career on the planet -- you can easily die never knowing what you are good at). They only really like people who choose to do a career they are good at on the first or second try. Or they like people who can convince others they've never failed at anything.
Most people don’t realize that being average is a matter of luck. It doesn’t matter how hard you work, you just have to be in the right place at the right time.
Perhaps stepping out of the "alpha" concept, and redefining what it means to be a man, is worth considering. Humans are not boolean, nor do they exist as a point along a singular axis.
To me, a "man" is someone who listens, who elevates others, who fights for others, and is relentless in doing so. We need less "alpha" in this world, and more "fierce gentleman". We need not warriors, but collaborators.
The problem with exceptionalism is there are more talented people than exceptional outcomes and so like a gambler you try your hand again hoping for that lucky roll exactly because you feel that in another universe, if the ball bounced right, you could be something so much more.
22 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 59.7 ms ] threadRising to power requires one to rise within a system designed and molded by those whom preceded them. And, more than likely, that system becomes inherently bias towards the types of people that have risen to that power.
The people in a social power position are able to use their influence to unilaterally market their subjective reasoning as fact to the greater society. So, being born, raised, and living in a society subjects us to predetermined social standards based on precedence. Not on merit or objective value.
If you don't have the motivation to be excellent, don't try. There really is no point to it, as the author pointed out. Excellent people have an inner "drive" to get there and they seek tremendous joy from walking that path. If you force yourself to do it, you will always be unhappy and your brain won't be able to compete no matter how much you try because there is nothing more important for success than this: You need to love what you do. But also, you need to be at the right time in the right place, have the right environment to strive and parents who have the ability to support you.
The world is a mean and unfair place...
have you never been in say a DMV office? i assure you, everyone working there is quite content to be average.
the problem is that people don't want the actual excellence - they want the prestige and reward for being excellent. They want the money, financial gains and status. Most people are unhappy doing what they do, but they see it as a way to achieve said status.
If you already have something you love doing, and is doing it with secure financials, you're already ahead of the game imho.
There are a lot of people who are viewed as excellent and yes, it often takes tremendous drive to get where they are (sometimes luck plays a bigger role), but how excellent are they really? Your suggestion that "they seek tremendous joy from walking that path" may work for some, but certainly not for all. A lot of the high achievers that I've known are relentlessly driven to the brink of mental or physical self-destruction. They may be proud of their success, but they don't seem to be joyful people. They may feel good when comparing themselves to someone like me, but they tend to compare themselves to people who are more successful than themselves, creating a vicious cycle of demanding higher achievment for themselves, yet never being satisfied by it. They concentrate on their careers at the expense of their families, so they have a lot of familial strife. Their spouses and children are virtual strangers. Then can't connect with them emotionally because that's a beta trait. On the other hand, I've known high achievers who are very happy, loving people. Are the former types really excellent? It depends on where we place our priorities, but as a culture (in the US), we tend to view ruthless, self-obsessed near-madmen as excellent.
What's average? Inevitably, it's someone who hasn't made a lot of money or grown high on a career ladder, or who hasn't had a large presence in helping people outside of his or her immediate social circle. In this last case, how wide does the circle have to be to elevate the person from average to excellent? Can an aide who works with disabled children in a high school be considered excellent? She's just a regular person with a below average income. But she may be inspiring because she's loving and thoughtful and thought-provoking. Her presence in the lives of her student may be the single most positive thing in their lives, but that impact is within a very small social circle. But then again, her small social circle of impact can include one person who goes on to have a tremendous impact on a large number of people. Does that now make her excellent?
Contentment with our lot seems to be one of the most underrated of human achievements and it can be well within the reach of the average person and far beyond the reach of the person of excellence.
In games you can see this competitive struggle and meta forcing and how dare you stray from obviously the best strategy. I believe there are correlates everywhere there is a hierachy of competence.
But the real problem is "categorizing" people. You can't know whether someone is cut out for something unless they try, and America in particular does not like that kind of progression (after all, you can't try every career on the planet -- you can easily die never knowing what you are good at). They only really like people who choose to do a career they are good at on the first or second try. Or they like people who can convince others they've never failed at anything.
To me, a "man" is someone who listens, who elevates others, who fights for others, and is relentless in doing so. We need less "alpha" in this world, and more "fierce gentleman". We need not warriors, but collaborators.