Everyone?

I've mentioned Dale Carnegie a couple times on this blog (here and here). Recently I came across the following quote attributed to him: “Everyone is your superior in some way.” I'm pretty sure this quote comes from How To Win Friends and Influence People, though it wasn't directly cited.

“Everyone is your superior in some way.” Here we have a proposition that may lead some to scoff. But the scoffers haven't thought carefully enough about it. It's easy to jest when you don't bother to think. To be sure, this quote isn't intended to be a flat-out bearer of truth, akin to something like 2 + 2 = 4 (though a case could probably be made in support of it). Rather, it is intended as a kind of “principle of human relations.”

Consider the person who flatly believes that they are superior to others. How are they likely to treat others when their behavior is predicated on the belief that they are a superior kind of human being? Contrast such a person with the opposite: he or she who approaches others with the understanding that everyone they encounter is, in some way, their superior. How are they likely to interact with others? Which person would you rather associate with? The point here isn't to “bow down” to everyone you interact with because they are better than you in some unknown or mysterious way. It is simply a psychological tool that can be used to help avoid arrogance and snobbishness, both of which are rather unlikable traits.

To state the same idea differently (my apologies to the anti-philosophy crowd), think of it this way: If the proposition that A) everyone is my superior in some way, is true, then it is equally true that B) I am superior to everyone in some way. The truth of one entails the truth of the other. But again, consider the difference in my potential outlook and behavior when I act on the basis of A instead of B. Both A and B are equally valid, yet they produce mutually exclusive outlooks and dispositions. The one I choose to focus on, and thereby think in terms of, affects my behavioral disposition, particularly in how I view myself and those around me, and will no doubt flow over into my daily interactions with others.

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.

Are You Good With People?

No offense, but what you think doesn't really matter. What matters is what the other person thinks. That's right, other people are the best judge of how well we interact with them. It's easy to read a few books on people skills and think “I know how to deal with people.” But what we think doesn't really matter. It's the other person who has to deal with us. We can think we're wonderful all day long, but in the end, if the other person doesn't think so, we're deceiving ourselves. Of course not everyone will think you're great 100% of the time. You might have the best of intentions, and you might even behave exactly as you should have, and sometimes someone will still be offended. You can't please everyone all of the time, but you can try. And by doing so perhaps you can be pleasing to a majority, a majority of the time.

Try!

Success in a given endeavor is achieved by those who try to succeed. (In this context, the word “try” should be understood as being synonymous with action—with exerting the actions necessary to accomplish an objective.) Yet sometimes we think it's “too soon,” or that we're “not ready,” or that there's no point in taking action because we'll probably “fail.” But what is the real downside here? What is the worst that could happen? More often than not there is little to lose by trying, and a great deal to gain if successful. If that is indeed the case, by all means try!

TalentSmart Articles

I've followed TalentSmart since I first read The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book back in 2005. Their work has been instrumental in developing my understanding of emotional intelligence as well as the impact it can have on a person. They keep an up-to-date list of their published "newsletter articles" on their website, and many of them are well worth perusing if you have a moment.

On Being Active

I was in the process of deleting some of my old bookmarked web pages when I came across this article, which gives a brief account of the passing of the then oldest living man—Walter Breuning—who was 114 and 205 days at the time of his death in April 2011. What stood out to me was that Breuning seems to credit his longevity to staying active, stating: “Everybody says your mind is the most important thing about your body. Your mind and your body. You keep both busy, and by God you’ll be here a long time.”

Perhaps you too have noticed that those who live a long time—aside from generally having good genetics—always tend to keep themselves busy. They always seem to be in the process of doing something. You don't find them sitting alone in a room staring out a window for hours on end. You don't find them enjoying a daily TV-induced coma. What you do find is a person engaged in some form of activity. Be it reading or writing, or working on hobbies, or participating in social activities or ministries, or cooking or crocheting. You find a person engaged, not idle.

I have often wondered about people who fantasize about “doing nothing.” Are they serious? Do they really want to do nothing? Sometimes I find myself wishing I was doing something other-than whatever I happen to be doing, but surely I want to be doing something as opposed to doing nothing. It seems that life and activity are inextricably related. Be active—live. Do nothing—die.