Success!
August 8, 2009
Alain de Botton asks; What kinds of emotional rewards underlie our efforts at “Success”? And what truth does tragic literature hold for us in deciding what success is?
“What is a snob? A snob is anybody who takes a small part of you, and uses that to come to a complete vision of who you are.”
“And the next time you see somebody driving a Ferrari, don’t think this is somebody greedy. Think this is somebody who is incredibly vulnerable, and in need of love. Feel sympathy, rather than contempt.”
“Envy is linked to the spirit of equality. Nobody envies the Queen of England, because she’s too weird…”
Lots more where that came from.
(h/t Greg Laden)
Categories: Uncategorized
I enjoy watching and listening to many of the talks available on TED. I tend to wonder why they include the ilk of this guy, and, for example, Tony Robbins. Psychobabble opportunists would be my category for this, but no such category is listed on TED.
I know that sounded a bit snotty, but I’m really tired of people who appoint themselves as life-gurus (didn’t this guy start something called “School of Life”), say pithy-sounding things, and get rich and famous for it.
No reflection on you for posting this up, of course.
I hold out no brief for ridiculous cars like the Ferrari, but, really, am I supposed to make all the psychological/emotional assumptions necessary to feel anything about the driver/owner, contempt, sympathy, or otherwise?
Phooey!
I enjoy a lot of the TED talks, but the quotes you supplied let me know I can skip this one. There’s enough shallow psychologizing on the web to go around. Why spend time listening to someone add their version? Or is this guy supposed to be a standup comedian?
I guess I’d better not take that job as a rich-and-famous self-help speaker, then :coolsmirk:
Environmentally speaking, however, there is a lot to be said for re-thinking how we define success. Our current model is doing a lot of damage.
I liked a few of his ideas and thought he was bringing something new to the table. I try to stay weary of self help dudes, and I’m not sure you can place him in the category of Robbins. Most people like Robbins are trying to get you to do what they do to be successful and rich. Alain doesn’t seem to care what you do as long it is defining your version of success.
I am usually the first one to mock most self-help
(con)artists, but some of them make at least a few good points about perception and self-perception that can be more than just pithy sayings…IF one is willing to make the effort of challenging and possibly attempting to change one’s prejudices.
The main problem I have with this talk is that he doesn’t seem to offer any solutiuons or techniques that have worked for him, just the observations of what was wrong, and maybe a vague idea of how to correct it. Or think about thinking about correcting it.
I do agree wholeheartedly with several of his observations. While it may seem that most people are horrible at accepting the responsibility that goes along with meritocratic ideals, I think that a lot of that is just plain old reality creeping into a twisted capitalist fantasy that never really was. Here in America, we dole out millions of dollars and cultural respect to people who really don’t do much at all, just because they managed to market their meager talents effectively. Sports stars, musicians, political pundits, preachers, partisan politicians, etc. We also allow the super-successful to define our culture for us, even when being lucky is their only virtue. Our zero-sum, supposedly meritocratic culture has not only ignored, but villified the noble failure. Why should people strive for the win, when their odds are really quite low in most cases, and the payoff for trying to be great is not only no reward at all, but vicious mockery and instant blame, no matter how noble your cause or valiant your attempt?
It seemed to me that his main points were that in any society that attempts meritocracy, we must eventually have a greater social lattitude in defining ourselves and our successes, and that no system, no matter how fair, will make up for all of the accidents and randomness of life, or the prejudices that we all harbor. To be a real functioning meritocracy, or at least something close and not just the sham, winner-take-all illusiuon of a meritocracy; to be a society of individuals that are treated as equally as possible while still retaining their individuality; we will have to be a more forgiving, open society that doesn’t actively discourage participation. Such a change can only start in one place…the individual.
That’s what I got out of it, anyway:) It doesn’t have to be hard physical science to be worth thinking about.