Whenever I am really inspired by something,
I am partially very motivated and happy,
and partially depressed because it shows me how much people can do,
and how much I can't do myself.
2) Becoming great at something requires a combination of innate ability plus tons of practice. It's just not feasible to master more than a couple things in the average lifetime; and most don't specialize enough to master even one.
3) Even exceptionally skilled and gifted folks blunder. For example, we buy singles these days because even the best artists rarely write a full album worth of good music.
3) Even exceptionally skilled and gifted folks blunder. For example, we buy singles these days because even the best artists rarely write a full album worth of good music.
I very much disagree with this, but I bet we'd disagree on who very great musicians are. It helps that the music world is filled with songwriters that take much time and review of their material until they are sure they find it acceptable. But anyway that's because an album is something that can be withheld and refined, the basic idea is totally right and your general points are agreeable to me.
It's easier knowing this,
and I've jammed it into my head repeatedly,
but I guess I need that happiness.
I know I can be happy if I understand how normal things are, and how it's important to keep from setting high expectations,
but I feel I can't enjoy that kind of lifestyle.
2) Becoming great at something requires a combination of innate ability plus tons of practice. It's just not feasible to master more than a couple things in the average lifetime; and most don't specialize enough to master even one.
3) Even exceptionally skilled and gifted folks blunder. For example, we buy singles these days because even the best artists rarely write a full album worth of good music.
To be honest, I think this guy had a good counter to the huffington post article:
Quote from Peter[/quote »
They entered the job market at a time when there were (at the start) 10 job seekers per job opening, and now down to a glorious three seekers per opening. The baby boomers entered the job market when the economy was hitting its greatest expansion ever. And let's talk about the fact that millennials entered the job market after three decades of conservative rollbacks across society which have resulted money flooding upwards, deteriorating working conditions, and (again) a massive lack of employment options which is obviously going to have the most negative impact upon the newest generation of workers. The millennials that can get jobs, are not getting jobs with pensions and healthcare. The GI generation handed the Baby Boomers a golden ladder to success.
Overall, I'm not particularly inspired by "You make yourself happy" whenever we came out of a large financial recession and a previous two recessions that weren't really well recovered from in tandem with massive outsourcing.
I think, sometimes, when you look at the big facts. It's okay to blame someone else for messing up the system, but that's when you grab a mop and look at that person that made the mess and shoo them away while you clean up the system for your kids. That's what the GI Generation did.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
@Feathas, the broader point I was trying to make is that exceptional work is a small subset of even a great artist's production. Nessun Dorma is 3 minutes in a 120 minute opera, for example.
Whenever I am really inspired by something,
I am partially very motivated and happy,
and partially depressed because it shows me how much people can do,
and how much I can't do myself.
Does this happen to anyone?
It shows that the potential for greatness is within us all, and that includes you. This is a thing to celebrate.
What is it you seek to accomplish you feel you cannot?
To be honest, I think this guy had a good counter to the huffington post article:
Quote from Peter »
They entered the job market at a time when there were (at the start) 10 job seekers per job opening, and now down to a glorious three seekers per opening. The baby boomers entered the job market when the economy was hitting its greatest expansion ever. And let's talk about the fact that millennials entered the job market after three decades of conservative rollbacks across society which have resulted money flooding upwards, deteriorating working conditions, and (again) a massive lack of employment options which is obviously going to have the most negative impact upon the newest generation of workers. The millennials that can get jobs, are not getting jobs with pensions and healthcare. The GI generation handed the Baby Boomers a golden ladder to success.
Yeah, I'm not impressed with the Baby Boomers' criticism of Millenials, in part because of what you posted, and in part because it was the Boomers' mismanagement of the economy that caused the Millenials to be in the *****ty financial situation they're in to begin with.
I didn't mean to derail the thread. To the extent that satisfaction is the comparison of expectations and reality, I was referencing that essay primarily on the expectations side. The criticism is focused on the reality side, so to some extent, the articles appear to be talking past each other.
My broader point was that I'm not special (I'm one of 7 billion) and I'm not entitled to be exceptional at everything, or even any one thing.
I didn't mean to derail the thread. To the extent that satisfaction is the comparison of expectations and reality, I was referencing that essay primarily on the expectations side. The criticism is focused on the reality side, so to some extent, the articles appear to be talking past each other.
My broader point was that I'm not special (I'm one of 7 billion) and I'm not entitled to be exceptional at everything, or even any one thing.
I think we need to take step back and look also what who you are actually competing with. Unlike what CEO's and people like Tom Friedman like to talk about competing with "people in Asia" for jobs and "age of mediocrity is over." We have to look at market fragmentation with the internet, and that the local job market is also more prone to hire people who are personal references. That is counter to the globalist wet dream of someone "competing" with some guy in Nanjing versus that guy in Washington for a job in a small town factory.
What you mostly compete with are people that tend to be local for the job market, and the people that are within an earshot of the boss. Which means that rather than thinking of excellence as a bell curve or Olympic Team, you look at it as a scatter plot graph. Where with a bell curve, someone always has to suck, whereas a scatter plot graph shows that people tend to be really mediocre at a lot of things and excel at a few things and suck at somethings out of their experience and interest. So of course you have the "golden boy" whose just awesome at his job and friends with everyone, but those people tend to move on rather quickly. Most of the people that "stay" tend be people who aren't super successful yet successful and content with their status.
The scale of "special" is relative to your reach at your current point, where everyone who achieve excellence is entitled to be acknowledged and promoted, should they choose to be so. With that said, people who make themselves special in the eyes of those around them make their lives more exciting since we are social animals.
What has corrupted the concept of "special" is the size and scope of comparison, seriously if you're a good singer are you going to compare yourself to Frank Sinatra or Whitney Houston at their prime? Certainly not if you're exceptional, but being the best within your church choir? That's an achievement, or saying that you're better than some popular singers when it's the truth.
The point is to ignore the people who you are not in direct competition with, and focus on the people who are exemplars, beyond "special," and work to be similar in some ways to them while also branding yourself to be different enough to be noticed.
The point is the scale and magnitude by which to look at the talent, and how high you want to go and what you need to compete with at the current stage you're at. It's the point of scale, and when people look at a too large of a scale they get depressed. So for example, Donny and Marie Osmond used to sing to certain songs on the radio to practice with his heroes rather than mourn that he "can't compete" or "isn't special." They just took advantage of the opportunities given to them and made do. In 100 years will either be remembered in the way Michael Jackson is? No.
One of my greatest irritations are the two placard criticisms or applause that Americans have with an ability:
"You're wonderful *hugs*"
"You're special like everyone *welcome to the jungle because you're all going to die*"
The both of which are useless, because they suck at giving an accurate analysis for what is going on at ground level.
Take for example Jackie Evancho, she's not competing with Frank Sinatra directly and has her own fan base. Nor is she in direct all or nothing competition with a litany of Bollywood singers. Could she compare to that one 4 year that can sing Carmen in Zimbabwe that no one has ever heard of? Only God can judge that level.
Appropriateness starts with scale when it can be measured, until then talents such as music, art, or even stacking boxes depends on what you're being compared to specifically. Without specifics and depending on the people doing the criticism's framework for understanding and own emotional tastes. And with market fragmentation and expansion in some arenas. It's in flux, rather than a static "you're not special." Because certain we can say that Jackie Evanncho singing at July 4th concern can be considered "special" or Donnie Osmand singing in the musical Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat? Or that kid singing a solo during Christmas Mass? Certainly. Yet, when they are sitting on the John are they special? No, not really. So it comes down to time and place as well.
A friend of mine who is an author once told me that she often reads crappy junk literature. Her rationale was that if she only read the great masters works she'd never be able to write herself.
If all you see is best and greatest works it will demotivate you because you'll never be that good ever. Depressing! But if you take in all the crap as well, you might be better than most of it. Sometimes motivation comes from the fact that, while you may not be an exceptional genius, you are better than the masses.
Yeah, I'm not impressed with the Baby Boomers' criticism of Millenials, in part because of what you posted, and in part because it was the Boomers' mismanagement of the economy that caused the Millenials to be in the *****ty financial situation they're in to begin with.
Since WWII you could say this about any generations prior to the one you are talking about. Its not exclusive to the boomers, the Xers, the Yers, or the millenials. Its just a crap situation being passed through the decades.
To the OP, society has made specialists a thing of the past. People now need to have knowledge about many issues and can not specialize in any one subject. This is partly the internet. There are no secrets anymore. In turn there is no need to strive to be the best at anything.
The odds that you can do something that will be inspiring to all the world are slim to none. You can't really fairly compare yourself to people who are able to accomplish widely-known greatness because you don't come from the same background & you have no idea what their shortcomings are or what qualities they might find impressive in you.
Focus on improving your skills at whatever you want to be good at. Focus on accomplishing things that will make your immediate area of the world a better place. Focus on being the best person you can be & on inspiring others around you to be the best they can be.
A friend of mine who is an author once told me that she often reads crappy junk literature. Her rationale was that if she only read the great masters works she'd never be able to write herself.
If all you see is best and greatest works it will demotivate you because you'll never be that good ever. Depressing! But if you take in all the crap as well, you might be better than most of it.
I really like this perspective on perspective.
@Lifa - I think your closing paragraph is interesting because it identifies that there may be different paths to inspirational. It may mean focus/specialization into a single art/craft/skill (which is how I read the OP). But it may mean also being a good person or having a positive impact on one's surroundings.
I didn't mean to derail the thread. To the extent that satisfaction is the comparison of expectations and reality, I was referencing that essay primarily on the expectations side. The criticism is focused on the reality side, so to some extent, the articles appear to be talking past each other.
My broader point was that I'm not special (I'm one of 7 billion) and I'm not entitled to be exceptional at everything, or even any one thing.
I fail to see how that's a useful perspective.
Every single person is unique. Not just unique amongst 7 billion, unique amongst every human being that ever has or ever will live. You are the only cme that will ever exist in universe.
So every one of us is exceptional innately. We should therefore strive to live exceptionally.
The key there is entitled. Just being born doesn't entitle someone to be exceptional.
As I noted in my first post, in order to be extraordinary at something, a person has to have some innate aptitude AND work really hard at it (10000 hours, if you will - though there are specific critiques of Gladwell's book).
I agree that human life is a miracle, that there is tremendous potential in most/every person, and to squander that is a tragedy.
I'm not entirely sure what the OP intended, but this is how I read the post. "I saw someone who was the GOAT at something, and I was sad that I'm not as good." So my initial response is somewhat along the lines of - why would you expect to be better than everyone else (or even most everyone else)? There's a tremendous amount of competition out there with a tremendous amount of genetic variation, a tremendous amount of differences in opportunity, etc.
So my response is not that a person isn't intrinsically special (as in valuable), or special (as in unique), it's that a person isn't intrinsically special (as in better or more important than others).
Whenever I am really inspired by something,
I am partially very motivated and happy,
and partially depressed because it shows me how much people can do,
and how much I can't do myself.
Does this happen to anyone?
I definitely understand that thought process. I understand it so well that I purposefully put myself down, constantly, this way I tend to not think about as much. It may not be the best idea to give up and be so negative, but I definitely don't feel as bad when always feeling bad than when I try to be positive. Of course that is just how I look at things. I also hate myself for giving up so easily and there are things I would like to see accomplish, but that is just the way things go I suppose.
If you truly want something you should go after it.
I am partially very motivated and happy,
and partially depressed because it shows me how much people can do,
and how much I can't do myself.
Does this happen to anyone?
For me, personally, three things provide perspective.
1) I'm not intrinsically special. See Why Gen Yers are Unhappy, for example.
2) Becoming great at something requires a combination of innate ability plus tons of practice. It's just not feasible to master more than a couple things in the average lifetime; and most don't specialize enough to master even one.
3) Even exceptionally skilled and gifted folks blunder. For example, we buy singles these days because even the best artists rarely write a full album worth of good music.
It's easier knowing this,
and I've jammed it into my head repeatedly,
but I guess I need that happiness.
I know I can be happy if I understand how normal things are, and how it's important to keep from setting high expectations,
but I feel I can't enjoy that kind of lifestyle.
I'd go insane, doing the same thing everyday.
Thanks again though.
To be honest, I think this guy had a good counter to the huffington post article:
Overall, I'm not particularly inspired by "You make yourself happy" whenever we came out of a large financial recession and a previous two recessions that weren't really well recovered from in tandem with massive outsourcing.
I think, sometimes, when you look at the big facts. It's okay to blame someone else for messing up the system, but that's when you grab a mop and look at that person that made the mess and shoo them away while you clean up the system for your kids. That's what the GI Generation did.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
What is it you seek to accomplish you feel you cannot?
Yeah, I'm not impressed with the Baby Boomers' criticism of Millenials, in part because of what you posted, and in part because it was the Boomers' mismanagement of the economy that caused the Millenials to be in the *****ty financial situation they're in to begin with.
My broader point was that I'm not special (I'm one of 7 billion) and I'm not entitled to be exceptional at everything, or even any one thing.
I think we need to take step back and look also what who you are actually competing with. Unlike what CEO's and people like Tom Friedman like to talk about competing with "people in Asia" for jobs and "age of mediocrity is over." We have to look at market fragmentation with the internet, and that the local job market is also more prone to hire people who are personal references. That is counter to the globalist wet dream of someone "competing" with some guy in Nanjing versus that guy in Washington for a job in a small town factory.
What you mostly compete with are people that tend to be local for the job market, and the people that are within an earshot of the boss. Which means that rather than thinking of excellence as a bell curve or Olympic Team, you look at it as a scatter plot graph. Where with a bell curve, someone always has to suck, whereas a scatter plot graph shows that people tend to be really mediocre at a lot of things and excel at a few things and suck at somethings out of their experience and interest. So of course you have the "golden boy" whose just awesome at his job and friends with everyone, but those people tend to move on rather quickly. Most of the people that "stay" tend be people who aren't super successful yet successful and content with their status.
The scale of "special" is relative to your reach at your current point, where everyone who achieve excellence is entitled to be acknowledged and promoted, should they choose to be so. With that said, people who make themselves special in the eyes of those around them make their lives more exciting since we are social animals.
What has corrupted the concept of "special" is the size and scope of comparison, seriously if you're a good singer are you going to compare yourself to Frank Sinatra or Whitney Houston at their prime? Certainly not if you're exceptional, but being the best within your church choir? That's an achievement, or saying that you're better than some popular singers when it's the truth.
The point is to ignore the people who you are not in direct competition with, and focus on the people who are exemplars, beyond "special," and work to be similar in some ways to them while also branding yourself to be different enough to be noticed.
The point is the scale and magnitude by which to look at the talent, and how high you want to go and what you need to compete with at the current stage you're at. It's the point of scale, and when people look at a too large of a scale they get depressed. So for example, Donny and Marie Osmond used to sing to certain songs on the radio to practice with his heroes rather than mourn that he "can't compete" or "isn't special." They just took advantage of the opportunities given to them and made do. In 100 years will either be remembered in the way Michael Jackson is? No.
One of my greatest irritations are the two placard criticisms or applause that Americans have with an ability:
"You're wonderful *hugs*"
"You're special like everyone *welcome to the jungle because you're all going to die*"
The both of which are useless, because they suck at giving an accurate analysis for what is going on at ground level.
Take for example Jackie Evancho, she's not competing with Frank Sinatra directly and has her own fan base. Nor is she in direct all or nothing competition with a litany of Bollywood singers. Could she compare to that one 4 year that can sing Carmen in Zimbabwe that no one has ever heard of? Only God can judge that level.
Appropriateness starts with scale when it can be measured, until then talents such as music, art, or even stacking boxes depends on what you're being compared to specifically. Without specifics and depending on the people doing the criticism's framework for understanding and own emotional tastes. And with market fragmentation and expansion in some arenas. It's in flux, rather than a static "you're not special." Because certain we can say that Jackie Evanncho singing at July 4th concern can be considered "special" or Donnie Osmand singing in the musical Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat? Or that kid singing a solo during Christmas Mass? Certainly. Yet, when they are sitting on the John are they special? No, not really. So it comes down to time and place as well.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Thanks for all the great info.
This will sink deep into my mind.
If all you see is best and greatest works it will demotivate you because you'll never be that good ever. Depressing! But if you take in all the crap as well, you might be better than most of it. Sometimes motivation comes from the fact that, while you may not be an exceptional genius, you are better than the masses.
Since WWII you could say this about any generations prior to the one you are talking about. Its not exclusive to the boomers, the Xers, the Yers, or the millenials. Its just a crap situation being passed through the decades.
To the OP, society has made specialists a thing of the past. People now need to have knowledge about many issues and can not specialize in any one subject. This is partly the internet. There are no secrets anymore. In turn there is no need to strive to be the best at anything.
Focus on improving your skills at whatever you want to be good at. Focus on accomplishing things that will make your immediate area of the world a better place. Focus on being the best person you can be & on inspiring others around you to be the best they can be.
@Lifa - I think your closing paragraph is interesting because it identifies that there may be different paths to inspirational. It may mean focus/specialization into a single art/craft/skill (which is how I read the OP). But it may mean also being a good person or having a positive impact on one's surroundings.
Every single person is unique. Not just unique amongst 7 billion, unique amongst every human being that ever has or ever will live. You are the only cme that will ever exist in universe.
So every one of us is exceptional innately. We should therefore strive to live exceptionally.
As I noted in my first post, in order to be extraordinary at something, a person has to have some innate aptitude AND work really hard at it (10000 hours, if you will - though there are specific critiques of Gladwell's book).
I'm saying we're already exceptional. Unimaginably, cosmically so. This is true by definition.
And our role, then, is to honor that.
I'm not entirely sure what the OP intended, but this is how I read the post. "I saw someone who was the GOAT at something, and I was sad that I'm not as good." So my initial response is somewhat along the lines of - why would you expect to be better than everyone else (or even most everyone else)? There's a tremendous amount of competition out there with a tremendous amount of genetic variation, a tremendous amount of differences in opportunity, etc.
So my response is not that a person isn't intrinsically special (as in valuable), or special (as in unique), it's that a person isn't intrinsically special (as in better or more important than others).
I definitely understand that thought process. I understand it so well that I purposefully put myself down, constantly, this way I tend to not think about as much. It may not be the best idea to give up and be so negative, but I definitely don't feel as bad when always feeling bad than when I try to be positive. Of course that is just how I look at things. I also hate myself for giving up so easily and there are things I would like to see accomplish, but that is just the way things go I suppose.
If you truly want something you should go after it.