Success!

[GZA]

Because I can't seem to find a channel for career related things... I actually wrote this several months ago.

What makes people successful, not-so-successful, and supersuccessful? What are the things you think we can do to be succesful? What I'm hoping is that we can generate worthwhile discussion that may motivate you or make you reconsider your goals.

Now, let me tell you now, I think that "success" is being satisfied with your life, your surroundings, ect. When I speak of "supersuccess", I'm thinking that ideal life, that life where everything is as you beleive the pure life should be, something that transcends mere satisfaction. To not be successful is to be unhappy with what you have done with your life.

I think one thing that may make the difference between success and great success is risk taking. I think people who are willing to take risk and have the confidence to make these risk benficial are more successful than those who would simply take an easy route that almost garuntees a nice, stable job (lawyer, teacher, whatever, you get the point). If you want to win big at the stock market, you must be willing to lose, right? These people have the confidence to make their dreams happen, they master their reality, no matter how risky.

I think another thing that can make people more successful is how they handle their goals. I think its best to be process oriented, to enjoy and appreciate what you are doing rather than always looking ahead to a single future destination. Any goals are seperated into smaller goals that flow with the overall process and allow for future growth. This is a pure motivation that exist in the present and the future; enjoying it as it happens and wanting to continue it in the future. It seems inefficient to me to have a single end goal, because that places no emphasis on the current, and in the event that goal is fulfilled, there won't be the same kind of thing to go to. If there is continuation, the motivation is in the present and future and there is almost no way the motivation will cease unless you are no longer physically or mentally able to do that work, or that work become sobsolete, making it more difficult to find the resources.

A lack of success could be caused by many things, such as a lack of resources, education, motivation/confidence. I don't think this needs much explanation...

What is the better way to live, to get an education and live a stable life with a good income, or to chase your dreams? Should, say, an aspiring painter stick to his intuition and paint, or should they follow the path suggested by others and go to business or law school or whatever?

Does success lie in social status and money, or in the fulfilment of your dreams, the reality of your ideal life? Is it a life like Donald Trump (rich, high social status, phony diejob) or the life of Jack Kerouac (poor, low social status (although he was famous for the book "On The Road"), but incredible life experiences) that you think is ideal?

[FDG]

Originally Posted by GZA

What is the better way to live, to get an education and live a stable life with a good income, or to chase your dreams? Should, say, an aspiring painter stick to his intuition and paint, or should they follow the path suggested by others and go to business or law school or whatever?

If he's able to do both, he'd better go for it. Education nowadays is easy to attain with a not-so-large expenditure of time.

In any case I define success as being happy with one own's life at the time being, contemporarily having the possibility of looking forward to an even happier future.

Your post concentrates on the paths available towards success. I agree with you on the risk-taking part of the equation. However, given the definition I outlined above, generally each person tends to do his/her own liking. I sustain that the actions of a person tend to give a picture of what he/she knows will lead to a life that makes him/her happy, and by this token I am against open intervention in other people's lives in order to "steer" them towards different paths.
Basically, some people like security and find happiness in it, so given that success is defined as happiness, transitively success will be defined as acquiring security.

[ygolo]

The following debate among psychologists may be enlightening.

Happiness: Is it in your genes or in your head? - By Steven Pinker, Martin Seligman, and Robert Wright - Slate Magazine

I agree with Seligman on some points(famous for "Learned Helplessnesses" phenomenon), Pinker on others.

I hope Seligman is right. But that is usually not enough to make something true.

But I figured it wouldn't hurt to borrow from their debate, considering the early agreement that "happiness" is essential to success.

[FDG]

Originally Posted by ygolo

The following debate among psychologists may be enlightening.

Happiness: Is it in your genes or in your head? - By Steven Pinker, Martin Seligman, and Robert Wright - Slate Magazine

I agree with Seligman on some points(famous for "Learned Helpnesses" phenomenon), Pinker on others.

I hope Seligman is right. But that is usually not enough to make something true.

But I figured it wouldn't hurt to borrow from their debate, cinsidering the early agreement that "hapiness" is essential to success.

"Wittgenstein was melancholy, irascible, and scathingly critical of everyone around him and even more critical of himself. In a typical seminar held in his cold and barely furnished Cambridge rooms, he would pace the floor, muttering audibly, "Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein, what a terrible teacher you are." Yet his last words impeach all forms of happiology. Dying alone in a garret in Ithaca, N.Y., he said to his landlady, "Tell them it's been wonderful!" If we don't take Wittgenstein's judgment of a happy life seriously, whose can we take? Hence Authentic Happiness' delineation of three happy lives: the Pleasant, the Good, and the Meaningful."

He equates outside manifestation of feelings with internal state of feelings, which is of course far from being true in many instances. I myself get told often that I look like I'm always angry, yet in many of those instances I'm just happily smirking (in my mind).

I do believe that happiness is genetic. Definitely. But it also averages out. People high on each spectrum tend to marry people that are high on the opposite side, and the son usually is nearer the middle. This should also mean that humanity as a whole is tending towards a distribution of happiness fatter in the middle, with less extremes.

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by FDG

I do believe that happiness is genetic. Definitely. But it also averages out. People high on each spectrum tend to marry people that are high on the opposite side, and the son usually is nearer the middle. This should also mean that humanity as a whole is tending towards a distribution of happiness fatter in the middle, with less extremes.

Depression seems to have a strong biological component, so why not happiness.

I actually signed up for Seligman's website and bought his book and started reading it, partly based on this discussion(apparently I'm a sucker for self-help).

So far, the theory espoused by the book is that we all have particular virtues, and the more we use those virtues the more gratified we will feel in general.

He also notes that people who people who ascribe negative events to temporary and specific issues while they ascribe positive events to permanent and pervasive things are happier than those who do the opposite.

The way my mind connects the two (I haven't finished the book, yet) is that if we discover our virtues and systematically learn to use them to effect positive events in our lives, then we will become happier.

Any thoughts?

[ptgatsby]

The baseline for happiness is mostly biological and is generally genetic. The variations are more environmental, in the sense that they trigger ups and downs in our physiology (where as the baseline is like a self-correcting form of happiness - we progress towards it absent environmental stressors).

Long term stress does shift certain things up and down (both the baseline and reactivity/etc)... but it's still not hugely significant.

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

The baseline for happiness is mostly biological and is generally genetic. The variations are more environmental, in the sense that they trigger ups and downs in our physiology (where as the baseline is like a self-correcting form of happiness - we progress towards it absent environmental stressors).

Long term stress does shift certain things up and down (both the baseline and reactivity/etc)... but it's still not hugely significant.

Once again, I am going to say that will and technique can trump both environment and genetics (it's just a matter of finding the right technique while sustaining the will for long enough to do it).

But, call me one of the hopelessly hopeful.