Dear Mr de
Botton,
I kindly
disagree with you. In the podcast released this last Friday by TED Radio
("Success"), you mention that "by definition, not everybody can
win the race", and then you go on on critizicing the winner-loser
mentality in the US. You propose as a solution to be more self-compassionate
when the results are not good. That would be nice, I agree, but it does not
address the fundamental issue: the nature of the game in which we are winners
or losers. I think that the “winners-losers” worldview is an evolutionary
victory over the "fortunate-unfortunate" worldview, but we as a
society still need to evolve to better define the game in which we win or lose.
The key
from my point of view is to "win" everyday in doing our best, in
giving our 100%, which is a "process" metric. That is the victory that can get us both
closer to mastery* and excellence and away from socially-imposed
"results" as metrics of success.
There are
two benefits of going after winning in the process (i.e., in the
"I-give-my-100% game") and not in the results:
1/ We would
be aligned with neuroscience (as reflected by another guest to your same
podcast: Angela Duckworth and the scientific basis for the "growth
mindset"), and
2/ We would
have fewer people anxious (especially on Sunday evenings...), and more people
would try to win. It is less threatening to "give your 100%" (a
relative measurement for each of us) than in "achieving socially
outstanding results" (which is an absolute yardstick). You effectively
conveyed that threat in your video about Procrastination on The Philosophers'
Mail.
Kind regards,
Armando
*: there are some interesting thoughts on the
difference between success (as a result metric) and mastery in the TED Talk from
art historian Sarah Lewis: “[mastery is] not the same as success, which I see
as an event, a moment in time, and a label that the world confers upon you.
Mastery is not a commitment to a goal but to a constant pursuit.”
