On Happiness and Politics (Copy-paste article - 2 thumps up)

[Baashi]

On Happiness and Politics

 

 

By Nick Fram

Opinions Columnist

Wednesday, March 2, 2005

 

Despite popular opinion, writing these columns is never easy. There is so much going on, both here in the bubble and outside of it (or so they tell me) that finding the perfect thing to write about -- well, it never happens.

This can be very frustrating. If I was the perfectionist I was in third grade, I would become sullen and endlessly beat myself up inside.

 

But that's no way to live. How many times do we have to be reminded that nobody's perfect?

 

It's how we deal with not being perfect that's important. For this, we have two options.

 

The first I call the apathy approach, which basically involves not trying. Why should I put endless effort into endeavors that are not guaranteed to turn out perfectly? Why should I invest my time in class or sports or life if there's a chance, in some arenas a big chance, that I'll end up disappointed?

 

This approach hinges on the notion that avoiding this disappointment would make me better off than having engaged myself in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to just sit at home, watch TV and embark upon an extended period of elegant decline?

 

Yes, this would be easier. Would this make you happier?

 

The second approach I call the human approach -- because this is what has gotten us this far as a civilization. It involves putting in the effort and dealing with the imperfection. If you realize that all the time and effort you put into something will not guarantee perfection, you are liable to be much happier than if this realization comes after your efforts, or not at all.

 

Not being able to attain perfection should never be an excuse for not trying.

 

It would be very easy, after the last election in which the G.O.P strengthened its hold on power, for those who lean left to fade into the first approach. Of course the apathy approach all of a sudden looks much more attractive to those dedicated campaigners who took time off work to go to Ohio and walk precincts or monitor polls in New Mexico -- only to leave empty-handed.

 

There are some who say that there is nothing more invigorating than working for a losing cause. These people have obviously never won. Trust me, winning is much better.

 

The apathy approach will not make you happier. It clashes with the fundamental basic human needs of achievement and self-actualization that Abraham Maslow hypothesized 50 years ago (look him up, he's brilliant).

 

Don't believe me? Sit on the couch for a week, then a month, maybe even a year. Then, if you can remember how to walk, get up and go get a job for a week, see if you can hold it for a month and stretch that into a year. Then write and tell me which made you happier.

 

The underlying point here is that even once you realize that all of your efforts may be in vain, you will still be better off having tried.

 

Michael Jordan once said that you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take. Well, in reality, even the maestro himself missed 50.3 percent of the shots that he did take. Do you think he would have been better off staying at home?

 

Whatever your political creed, do not let losing be an excuse for giving up. The system is designed for there to be a winner and a loser, and sometimes the winner is just not going to be you. This message is often lost in the Stanford world where "win or else," more often than not, is the motto.

 

The day we give up is the day that we start the long devolution back to from whence we came. And if you've read as many history books as I have, I'm not sure that's a place we want to go.

 

On a completely separate note, if you're sick of groups on thefacebook.com too, e-mail Nick at ndfram@stanford.edu.

[xiinfaniin]

Baashi, thanks for posting. this is a good read.

 

The message of human approach rings true. And this is a case for ceaseless quest to improve one’s life regardless of how big the chances of success is.