![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Search for Quality
A recent conversation has had me thinking about two somewhat complementary and somewhat contradictory life philosophies concerning "quality"- by which I (think I) mean, things that are best-fit for your needs and desires.
The first philosophy:
Life is change; happiness is more about accommodation and compromise than railing against things you can't change. As such, quality is not only subjective, it's meant to change according to the environment (so no point pining for a steak at a vegetarian restaurant, say). Try for the best outcome but expect average, and allow for the worst. Quality is elusive- great experiences are rare. Be grateful for high-quality things and be reasonably happy with medium-quality. Learn to avoid low-quality.
The second philosophy:
Life is change; to be happy, stay on top of the change and try to manipulate the environment to be comfortable in it. Quality is subjective, but relatively constant over time. Try for the best outcome; expect the best, allow for the worst, but don't be happy with less than high quality. Learn to avoid low and medium quality; high quality is worth the effort. Life is short enough that you don't want to waste time with less.
---
I can see the merits of each; neither seems a foolish strategy for maximizing happiness.
If the second person is adept at finding high quality, they could easily end up happier overall. But realistically, how much time do they spend being unhappy with the non-ideal environment?
And the first person would say they are happy, and it seems to me that they would be. Except they're not exactly maximizing their choices for their definition of quality, they're making do more often. And it would be a non-optimal match even if they allow it to shift over time. (Especially so- their current life might match up, but looking back might make them unhappy about where they had been!)
Hm. As happiness-seeking creatures, should we all be trying to be #1, #2, both, neither?
The first philosophy:
Life is change; happiness is more about accommodation and compromise than railing against things you can't change. As such, quality is not only subjective, it's meant to change according to the environment (so no point pining for a steak at a vegetarian restaurant, say). Try for the best outcome but expect average, and allow for the worst. Quality is elusive- great experiences are rare. Be grateful for high-quality things and be reasonably happy with medium-quality. Learn to avoid low-quality.
The second philosophy:
Life is change; to be happy, stay on top of the change and try to manipulate the environment to be comfortable in it. Quality is subjective, but relatively constant over time. Try for the best outcome; expect the best, allow for the worst, but don't be happy with less than high quality. Learn to avoid low and medium quality; high quality is worth the effort. Life is short enough that you don't want to waste time with less.
---
I can see the merits of each; neither seems a foolish strategy for maximizing happiness.
If the second person is adept at finding high quality, they could easily end up happier overall. But realistically, how much time do they spend being unhappy with the non-ideal environment?
And the first person would say they are happy, and it seems to me that they would be. Except they're not exactly maximizing their choices for their definition of quality, they're making do more often. And it would be a non-optimal match even if they allow it to shift over time. (Especially so- their current life might match up, but looking back might make them unhappy about where they had been!)
Hm. As happiness-seeking creatures, should we all be trying to be #1, #2, both, neither?
no subject
no subject
Part of the motivation here is being in situations where I realize after the fact that had I been more assertive, I might have been happier with the outcome.
More later- gotta go to work now. ;)
no subject
One day I was giving a fellow Toastmaster a ride home and was telling her how stressed I was, and she said "Why do you think you have to be good at everything you try?"
I know she said this to try and help me relax-- as if since quality didn't matter, it wouldn't matter to me whether I was good or not. Instead it gave me permission to quit, because suddenly it hit me-- I have to do well at what I do, but I don't have to be good at everything.
I gave up on my dream to be an Olympic athlete in, oh, 2nd grade, and it hasn't troubled me for one second since, so why was I putting myself through all this stress now-- as an adult with an established career that has *nothing* to do with public speaking?
I know that's not exactly what you meant, but it comes back to same issue.
Why settle? Quality is subjective, but you get to define what is high quality in your own life. You get to say "that's not good enough for me-- that's not fulfilling enough for me to continue."
The trouble is that you can only really demand high quality from yourself. You can appreciate it in others, and avoid anything else, but you can't require it unless you're willing to say goodbye to whatever doesn't measure up.
I have found that in my life I'm willing to say goodbye far more often as I get older. I can remember a time when I was friends with many people just for the sake of having friends. Having a lot of friends made me feel safe somehow. No, not so much so.
I'm more willing to sacrifice than compromise-- I guess that would be #2. I witness many people who are willing to compromise to a HUGE degree rather than sacrifice. I think you have to go as far in either direction as makes you happy.
And I'm not as addicted to "happiness" as I used to be. Or my old definition of happiness. I find I enjoy being contented more than being "happy." It's hard to concentrate when I'm too happy :) :)
ALLLLLLLL that said-- I do believe that you can choose your attitude in order to get through things that are required, and that if you're required to do something you'd rather not do, the experience will not be improved by dwelling on the things you hate about it.
But it's the stuff that is NOT required and NOT fulfilling that I've decided to do away with in my life-- it's my New Year's Resolution. My former fellow Toastmasters have been giving me a lot of grief for quitting. For some reason they think that my presence there improves THEIR experience somehow. But that's not good enough for me.
Thanks for letting me vent :) Good topic!
no subject
On "saying goodbye" to parts of one's life: I'll self-disclose a bit more and say that I find myself acting like #1 more than #2, and wondering what sorts of things are keeping me from asserting myself against my environment- such as dropping projects that aren't fulfilling or required.
For me it seems to come down in some cases to not having a strong opinion on the subject; which is fine. Other times perhaps I have a strong sense of sentimentality, or misplaced "loyalty" to the idea/project, or general non-assertiveness if it involves someone else's happiness too.
I don't think I need to be less sentimental or loyal, but I'm taking an assertive communication class for a reason. ;)
All of this is present for me as I'm trying to figure out what sort of path I want to set for myself (versus the ones I already see and am already following)!
no subject
I'm not sure that it can be, at least not in a manner that's portable across people and cultures.
no subject
In trying to describe philosophies I think I've seen in action: I'm taking the somewhat lazy tack that this only needs to be relevant in the small sphere centered, say, around the readers of this LJ. I won't even claim "north american culture."
no subject
What you can't say is that you're happier (or less happy) than I am. How can you know that? It's like saying you're in more or less pain than somebody else, or even that you're smarter or dumber than somebody else.
Happiness may be quantifiable (I'm not even sure about that, just that we have a feeling of "more" and "less") but I don't believe that it's at all portable. It's just too subjective, and indeed, malleable - something that makes you happy today may not make you as happy tomorrow.
no subject
That said, the two seem a false dichotomy. I don't think that just because I'm happy with mediocre that that implies that I can't strive as hard for the best as the person who's unhappy with mediocre does. Why couldn't I be adept at finding high-quality things and strive hard to find high-quality things but still be happy even if that doesn't pan out?
no subject
Yes: maybe they are a false dichotomy and most people blend the two to a satisfactory mix. My observation is mostly concerning people who seem to be unhappy with the medium-range.
no subject
no subject
Trying to figure out a life philosophy to follow a priori is kinda silly. As a happiness-seeking creature, you should use the tools at your disposal to figure out empirically what philosophy makes you happiest, and do that. You may discover that your happiness in many circumstances has nothing to do with quality at all.
no subject
Heh, I'm not so great at epistemology. :P :)
no subject
What I get out of your musing is the question "will adapting to my environment or working to change it be more fulfilling?"
I tend to follow the former course, though not exclusively. Depending on how they interpret the philosophy and act on it, I could find people who hold to the "manipulate" philosophy either a source of stress or a welcome partner in change. I can see how neither way is for everyone, or for anyone all the time.
no subject
no subject
It's a good message.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
[Edit to add: heh. I just listened to the beginning of it: it was a Quirks and Quarks from 2006. Which I will listen to again. ;)