Lance Armstrong and Certainty

Lance Armstrong has been viewed by many people to be the best contemporary example of human potential in action. And it isn't hard to see why. His official website briefly explains his biography:

If scripted by Hollywood, the story would be dismissed as trite melodrama: A deadly disease strikes a promising athlete. Despite desperately thin odds, he manages not only to beat the affliction but also to return to the sport and win its top prize, not once but a record seven times. Unbelievable, except it's true.

But the story doesn't end on the finish line at the Tour de France. His experience made him a part of a cancer community, and motivated him to unleash the same passion and drive he does in bike races to the fight against cancer.

Since he made history in 1999, he has won the tour six more times, and has become one of the most recognizable and admired people of this era.

And yet earlier today cycling's governing body—Union Cycliste Internationale—agreed to strip the seven Tour de France titles of Lance Armstrong and ban him from the sport for life; citing a recent doping investigation conducted by the USADA, which has reportedly revealed Armstrong's participation in various deceptive activities of the USPS Pro-Cycling Team. For the purposes of this post, I will assume the findings of the USADA investigation to be brute fact (it is of course possible that the investigation of the doping conspiracy is itself a conspiracy, but let that pass).

Few people have provided the modern world of “motivation” with a better real-life example of human potential and performance than Lance Armstrong. And it's no surprise that Armstrong's story has been used (and perhaps overused) as a megaphone to serve that purpose. But now that the best living example (arguably) of human achievement has been shown to be a fraud, his story (if it is mentioned at all) will have to be changed to something like “he could have been what we thought he was, if only he had done x.”

What this little debacle illustrates is the distinction between perception and reality. Between the way we think things are, and the way they actually are. No doubt there are people out there who cannot bring themselves to believe that such an indictment on the great Lance Armstrong could possibly be true, and no doubt they will tie themselves in knots trying to explain why or how it is false. It's one thing to know the character of a person, or rather how we have experienced a person's character in the past. But knowing what we know about another person with certainty is a different matter altogether. And the certainty of the character of a public figure is, as a brute fact, one of the least certain certainties of all.

On Greener Grass

No doubt the adage “the grass is always greener on the other side,”—or something akin to it—has, at one time or another, reached your eyes or ears. The saying is quite common, and is generally interpreted to mean that regardless of circumstances, we humans tend to think that the “other person” has things better off than we do. We tend to think of the other person's grass as being ever green, so to speak, while simultaneously evaluating our own grass (life, circumstances, etc.) as shoddy and in need of sustenance.

Taken literally, the statement “the grass is always greener on the other side,” leads to absurdity. Were the aforementioned statement literally true, it would seem to follow that there would necessarily be a hierarchy of “green grasses,” which would eventually culminate in a single person possessing the “greenest grass” of all. But if a single person possesses the “greenest grass,” then the grass cannot always be greener on the other side, because there would be no existing superior grass for the said person to gaze upon. Moreover, if I find myself somewhere in the middle of the “grass hierarchy,” (continuing the assumption that the statement is literally true) I would only be able to gaze upon those with grass superior to my own, since if I gazed upon a patch of inferior grass, then the grass couldn't possibly always be greener on the other side. It seems therefore, that the statement can only be taken literally by he or she who possesses the absolute worst grass possible—a single person. Hardly the criterion needed to establish a “common saying.”

What needs emphasis is that the grass is not “always” greener on the other side, but rather, that we humans tend to merely perceive it as being greener. We tend to think that so-and-so has things better off than we do, which may or may not be the case. This interpretation brings to light the distinction between appearance and reality. It may be true that so-and-so has things better off than we do, but on the other hand it might not be. Thus, the above adage may be amended to something like “the grass often appears greener on the other side.”

But this too is fallacious, in a sense. When we think that so-and-so has things better off than we do, what we find—when we really stop and think about what we are thinking—is that so-and-so has something specific that we find desirable. What we are really thinking about are particular instances of a person's life. We might think that so-and-so has a good job, and thus more financial security than we do. (Even this boils down to the fact that we assume the other person has more financial security, since, despite having a good job, it's possible they could be addicted to online gambling, or mired in debt, or some such thing.) We might think that so-and-so is married while we are single, and that so-and-so is consequently happier than we are. Or maybe so-and-so is particularly talented at a given thing, while we are not. In any case, we are thinking about particular instances or aspects of a person's life (at least as they appear to us).

So thoughts of another person's grass being greener is really an oversimplification. What we are really thinking about is this grass, or that grass, in a person's life, rather than the whole grass. Seeing a patch that we take to be greener than our own, we mistakenly conclude that this or that particular instance of a person's life is indicative of the whole. We see this patch of grass as being greener, and because that is what we see, we assume that all of it must be greener as well. We see so-and-so having a good job, and because we may be struggling financially, we conclude that so-and-so is better off than we are. We see so-and-so being married, and infer that so-and-so must be happier than we are, ad infinitum. But what about the things we do not see?

You may think that so-and-so has the prefect life, or a close approximate, but if you reflect on this accurately you will find that you are confusing part with whole. Certain particular instances of someone's life may be desirable, but you do not know what you cannot see. You do not know what you do not know. You can only see so much, you cannot see everything, and if you could, you might think twice about envying the life of another person. The wishing away of one's life circumstances, or the fantasizing about the life of another, is, in most cases, naïve. Don't be so quick to wish your own life away. You may wish for different circumstances, but if and when you get them you will often find that such circumstances carry complications of their own. Those among us who are truly happy and content, are happy and content here and now.