After a while, here's another thing worth writing about.
This is one of those TEDx talks. This one is called "Average is awesome: embrace mediocrity as the key to success". I recommend that you watch it because it's very interesting, but in case you're too lazy I will try to summarize it for you.
So this guy says:
- He was bored, home alone, checking his facebook and thinking of how one of his friends' life was so much better than his.
- Today's society sets our minds in a way that we think "the top" is an achievement on itself, regardless what it implies.
- What matters is not the achievement on itself, but our interpretation of it.
- People who have a few options are generally happier with their choices than people who have many options, and apparently there are studies that support this statement.
- When making a choice (he talks about getting the best sweater in a mall), there are the maximisers, who compare all possible choices and take their time to make sure that they pick the best one; this guys pick better options. And then there are the satisfisers (am I spelling it right?), who look at possible choices one by one until they come to one that is good enough for them, and then they stop looking; this guys are happier with their choices, even when they are objectively not as good as those of a maximiser.
- If we could be just ok with our own mediocrity instead of aspiring to excellence, we would be more satisfied with what we have.
Now, my thoughts:
First I thought when I read the title, if this guy really believed what he's preaching, he probably wouldn't be giving a TEDx talk.
But anyway.
I agree with many of the things he says. I agree that working for the number 1 company won't necessarily make you happy, even if it's objectively better than the number 10 company, which is not as bad either. It all depends on how much you care about what others think of you and how important it is for you to impress people. It depends on whether you are able or not to admit that even if neurosurgery sounds sooooo cool, pathology just works better for you.
On the other hand, I don't think embracing mediocrity without aspiring to anything better than what we have is the best approach. Like I said some other day, life is a succession of decisions and achievements. It is true that achievements on themselves won't necessarily make us happy, but the fact that we were able to fight for something we wanted and eventually get it does. Because even if after a while we realise that we don't really like it that much, we feel proud of ourselves, and that is some sort of happiness. If we limit ourselves to the comfort of our mediocrity we won't keep growing as individuals. As long as we don't loose perspective. As long as we are able to admit our mistakes without shame, as long as we are able to admit that we prefer number 10 over number 1, without fearing what others will think. Without fearing the word "looser". Knowing that what we loose going a few numbers down, doesn't matter to us as much as what we can win, and keeping in mind that different things are differently important to different people.
He gives this example with chocolates. People who pick the best out of six possible kinds of chocolate are happier with their chocolate than people who pick the best out of thirty. Ok, good. But these poor people were only given a very limited number of options. They don't know what they're missing and this ignorance makes them happy. It's only when they find out that other random people (not better than themselves in any other way) were given way more options, that they start feeling cheated. Knowledge is power, they say, but with great power comes great responsibility. And once you come to know that there were actually thirty different kinds of chocolate and you're given the possibility to try them all, and you believe you can find one that is better than the one you got, then why not? Unless you decide that you have better things to do with two hours of your life than finding an awesome fucking sweater. But in any case, it's only up to you to decide whether you want to sacrifice your time or your sweater's quality, and this is where you have to be honest to yourself and find out what you really care about the most.
In the same line of thoughts, since every choice implies the possibility of being wrong as well as the need to give up every other option, the more options you have, the harder it will be for you to decide. First, because it is more likely that you will not make the best possible decision, as the best is only one out of thirty. And second, because giving up five different kinds of chocolate is better than giving up twenty nine, especially if they let you try them only to then take them away from you. However, that doesn't mean you should deliberately limit your options or content with mediocrity when you can aspire to something better. Otherwise, we should have never come outside the cave.
So, the real problem comes when you go to facebook and you compare your otherwise satisfying life to the apparently much better life that you think your friends (facebook friends) have according to the awesome photos they are publishing. The problem comes when you see someone who grew up with you, or who went to school with you, or who shared with you a significant part of their, let's say, development as citizens of the world, someone who started from the same starting point and under the same starting conditions as you did, and you realise that, objectively, either personally, socially or laborally, they are doing better. And you wonder what you did wrong that they did right.
Honestly, I'm still looking for an answer to that question.
