What is heartwarming about this is that most "small minded, small town" people don't know this so much as this is just the only way they know... if that makes sense. It's not until you leave and try something else and realize what you thought was so much more; what you thought was better; the dream you chase is really just an illusion. There may be so much more to life than small town living, but what the small town people often don't know they know is that they have everything that's important in life - family, friends, community. The rest is just fluff laid on us as "important", "necessary" and "deserved" by the propaganda fed to us every day by the media. "By God you work hard, you deserve these luxuries in life." What they fail to impart: Most of these luxuries are meaningless, a constant cycle of planned obsolescence, consumerism and mindless spending designed to keep you in a state of want.
I was the ambitious one, the one that strayed far from home, chasing the dream, getting caught up in the consumerism. I'm glad that by the age of 38 I have come to realize that I had everything that was important before I left. The remainder was a constant cycle of churn, want more, want bigger, want better, want newer, want more convenient. Except it's hard when it's being fed to you every day by every billboard, every sign, every menu, every advert, every press release, every news story, every TV show to differentiate between want and need. When you stop to analyze what you actually need - I mean really need: Clean air, clean water, shelter, nutrition, sanitation, family, community, companionship; how much of what you're being sold every day is truly "needed" and how much of it is a want to fulfill some notion that has been sold to you by the media?
That's great if you come from a place like that that you can return to. Not everyone is so lucky.
Those of us who grew up in big cities and moved away often have nothing to return to, nor would staying have helped. I'm an only child, and my parents are still together, but no longer live where I grew up. Everyone I knew from my childhood is scattered throughout the country. The neighborhood I grew up in was bulldozed and is now luxury condos. This is a common story among millennials.
People ultimately want a sense of belonging to SOMETHING. We're jaded about many of the traditional societal support structures like religion, marriage, work, or politics. As a result, many millennials identify with brands instead. Branding is enormous among millennials, even when looking at cohorts from previous generations at the same age. It's how millennials express their personality -- not by being creative, but by mashing up things that are already widely popular into our own identities. There are even counter-culture brands that let you identify with hating everything about consumer culture.
What do you do if you're not from anywhere? You don't know how to belong to a tight-knit social group because your friends have been disposable your whole life (and vice-versa). So you drift along in a consumer-oriented delirium, and if you're lucky you can join your life with some other lost soul so you're not so lonely. You are ambitious because let's face it, what else do you have going on?
So is it any surprise that people eat up what the media sells them? For many people, there's not a more attractive alternative.
I see where you come from, and sympathize with your situation. I am also aware that what I am going to say does not and cannot apply for everyone. But speaking exclusively about your case...
You really need to learn how to think on your own.
If you just follow the script you are provided by default, they win and you loose your soul. In practice, doing something about it for many people means jumping from the pan that is mainstream culture into the fires of the alternative counter-culture scene.
Once you do that, it does not mean that you will automatically be given a ticket to Nirvana. Instead, you will find a different group of puppeteers who will try to feed you with a different script. Trust in your gut and challenge everything you are told. After you have done it a few times, you will be able to pick up the common patterns and the differences between the foundational myths of each tribe.
At the end of day, you never will see reality as it is. We are social creatures and we always experience reality as socially mediated phenomena. However, once you have switched lenses a few times, you begin to grasp how each leans distorts reality, and your mind begin to make corrections.
(I learned this be virtue of have been raised a devout Catholic. University and Science delivered terrible blows to my world view, which caused significant pain during my early twenties, but this prevented my imagination from being too caught into the modern myth of Progress).
Once you have tried maybe a dozen lenses, and picked up two or three that let you see reality in a way that is both useful and meaningful to yourself, then you might be able to try and make a new lens from scratch. Most people never reach this far; I am 39 and at least know I am quite far from there yet.
> So is it any surprise that people eat up what the media sells them? For many people, there's not a more attractive alternative.
I have given you one alternative, but there is a price. When time is due, please pay it forward.
I dislike those tight-knit exclusive social groups that do not welcome new members. They are cliques more than anything. One true friend is better than a group of close-minded people who consider you one of them.
Living a nomadic life or in big cities does not prevent you from making deep connection and maintain relationships with others. It just requires you to have the ability to love others, and higher skills at forming long-lasting friendships. It's can be harder than if you were living in a small village, but definitely possible.
I find this entire premise to be so sad. I was especially distraught reading when you stated: "You don't know how to belong to a tight-knit social group because your friends have been disposable your whole life (and vice-versa)"
It seems logical to me that basing a relationship off of branding would lead to transient and shallow relationships. You should seek to have a better way of self identifying with people. Say perhaps by the type of person they are instead of the collection of things they own.
I would also say that the term "friends" here is a misnomer. These are not friends, these are acquaintances, or people you met once. Friends are people you are intimately familiar with - not in the sexual term of intimate, but in that you have an emotional bond with them. People for whom with distance and time, this bond fades slowly. If you have no friends, it's time to get out of your shell and join clubs, do activities, make friends, form bonds relating by personality, ethics, values. Forming bonds based on you both being Apple disciples or both drink Pepsi seems remarkably disconnected to me.
Well said, I think a lot of people (especially teenagers and young adults) form bonds based on their affinity to certain brands. IMHO, they haven't really developed a strong sense of self and an identity just yet, so it is easier for them to find community this way.
But I don't think that forming bonds this way, or attempting to, is sustainable in the long run. Like you alluded to, those friendships are superficial at best.
Millennials having grown up with internet friends and now entire social media networks may just be overwhelmed with the day to day situation of the normal local mundane day job, and the immensity of internet social networks. There's opportunity out there in many different realms, either via materialistic pursuits, socializing, artistic endeavors, education, entertainment, video games, logging off and going for a walk in your city.
Lots of millennials are sedated with the hugeness of internet life. There's a great sense of restless apathy amongst the generation, and an easy way to revitalize your life on the surface is through toys and shiney fabric.
Or by moving to the country, growing your own food and getting some chickens and doing something that adds real value to your life. Nurture something (anything) meaningful and you will find meaning in your life.
What makes you mad about society? Find a meaningful way to do something about it. What are you passionate about? Find a way to contribute to that. What is missing in your community? What can you offer to help make it happen?
Look for ways to provide real value to other people's lives - I don't mean helping them to live the same meaningless life you're expressing apathy for, look to make a real difference. It's amazing when you give yourself to others how that generosity is repaid with real friendship and a sense of kinship with others.
>...they know is that they have everything that's important in life - family, friends, community.
Well, there also seems to be a certain population of humans where "family, friends, community" does not bring contentment and fulfillment.
Think of a married man with children who often has thoughts of driving alone into the sunset and never turning back. It's only societal norms that keeps him from acting out his plans. When he was younger, his parents and friends had convinced him he'd be happy once he "settled down" but now he feels he's been sold a lie. Now what? Is he defective? If society forced him to watch "It's a Wonderful Life" ten times would he finally have a George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) moment shown at the end of the movie[1]? Would he slap his forehead exclaiming, "yes I was so stupid. I should just be content with my family!" ?
Maybe there are some people who can't have that Hollywood ending. Instead, they live in a perpetual "Death of a Salesman" loop.
Maybe some folks must pursue a purpose and chase a dream and if they don't, "family and community" mean nothing to them.
>I was the ambitious one, the one that strayed far from home, chasing the dream, getting caught up in the consumerism.
But there's also ambition without the "consumerism".
In any case, let's say we have 2 types of people that don't know what "true happiness" is:
1) the person who chased life in the big city, got the Harvard MBA, the prestigious partnership at XYZ Law Firm, the whole brass ring. He realized it was all a waste and it was family relationships that he neglected that was really important.
2) the person who settled into family life and realized he's not really cut out for domestic living. Since society doesn't allow him to return his wife & children for a refund, he feels "trapped" in his boring existence. He lost his chances at "making something of himself".
It looks like the article we're discussing, and Hollywood movies, and most of the HN comments here are biased to scenario #1. It's like scenario #2 is a taboo subject.
Are we smart enough to self-reflect and know which type we fall into so we don't turn into 40-something zombies living with regrets?
> Think of a married man with children who often has thoughts of driving alone into the sunset and never turning back.
Once you make the choice to bring little ones into the world, it's not just about you and your pursuit of your happiness anymore. You don't ride off into the sunset not because of society's norms, but because if you did, what about those little kids? Should they be dumped by the side of your road because they're interfering with your happiness?
You made them, you owe them something better than that.
Right... but my comments were about the messages we get from society before we make that choice. It's how society (e.g. magazine article of this HN thread) can distort that choice.
>, what about those little kids? Should they be dumped by the side of your road because they're interfering with your happiness?
You made them, you owe them something better than that.
You misunderstood what I'm saying. I wasn't talking about ethics. The husband could stay with the kids because of societal norms, or stay because he feels personal responsibility, or stay because his kid knows how to reprogram his Android phone. It doesn't matter what the actual reason is or whether that reason is noble or trivial.
My point was that the author of the article is putting forth a narrative about happy town life and it's heavy-handed enough that it comes across as a prescription for how to live. It seems as if she's not acknowledging that there are certain types of people who will not be happy prioritizing relationships over ambition.
That sort of blind spot is expected right? Isn't it normal for people who are happy to analyze why they're happy and then conclude it's the friends & family? Therefore they project that friends & family for others will likely make them happy too.
As a result, you get a lot of articles/movies/advice like hers playing up the family/friends/community narrative. It's not offset by any articles that advise a reader to diagnose if one's disposition is even compatible with that type of life.
If I'm hearing you right, your point is that we should be careful about society only crafting one message about happiness, because we could lead that man into the wrong unhappy situation.
I do think the evidence is pretty strong that friends/community is correlated with happiness, though it's an interesting theoretical question whether or not it's correlated without causation.
People who tend to be happy might also tend to like being part of a community.
I do believe the relationship is causative, but admit it's a hard thing to prove.
I doubt there are many people whose lives are not bettered by friends & loved ones.
The hitch, I think, is when we try to prescribe how & when people should acquire them.
E.g., your culture pushes you into marriage at a young age "because having a spouse and kids will make you happy" when in reality having the right spouse will make you happy and the wrong one won't. Since you were pushed, maybe you didn't make a good choice in spouse.
Similar things could be said about shallow/forced/artificial friendships. While everyone benefits from good friends, what those friends are like and how you find and bond with them differs for different people
So maybe it's important to deliver the message that people are what matter, but also important not to try to force when or who or where, and let people find their own way.
Fine. I can't argue that people feel genuinely trapped in this situation; it happens all the time.
I would point out though that the original conversation is about community rather than children per se, and that this is a situation the man in question (usually) chose to enter.
That he might have made the wrong move is more his fault than society's for having misled him about what would give him happiness.
> Think of a married husband with children who often has thoughts of driving alone into the sunset and never turning back.
Oh, I've been there, a few times. The thing that stopped me ultimately wasn't "societal norms", it was that in all reality, the sun was shining, the road was empty, there was peace in the moment. The quiet and tranquility of being alone a stark contrast to the chaos and turmoil of home [you can only live in a state of chaos for so long before your brain can't cope with it any more]. Running off into the sunset alone serves no purpose though. Perhaps you settled down too soon, perhaps you've not yet learned to find the joy in being "settled down." I'm not saying you're wrong for feeling that way, I'm not saying don't drive off alone into the sunset and never turn back. What I am saying is that the grass is only greener on the side of the fence that you nurture it. Of course, your life may be amazing, you may love your job and you may love your family, friends and community - but everyone needs a vacation occasionally.
I don't think I even heard the word "regret" until I was like 30. Where/when I grew up, you went to the best schools, got the best job, and settled down as quickly as possible. People who were unhappy simply didn't want to be happy, like it was their choice.
I don't really care bout "making something of myself" but to the extent you're going to be settled, one should ensure that they're happy WHERE they're settled. In the end I've learned that no one really gives a fuck about me. Not my parents. Not my brother. Especially not my wife. Maybe my kids, too young to tell. Doesn't matter how much I water my grass, I planted the wrong variety and ultimately it's kids (and poor health) that keep me rooted.
Sometimes I think I'm the only person in the world who had kids so I could give THEM happy lives and only when I realized that others didn't did their actions start to make sense.
> 1) the person who chased life in the big city, got the Harvard MBA, the prestigious partnership at XYZ Law Firm, the whole brass ring. He realized it was all a waste and it was family relationships that he neglected that was really important.
> 2) the person who settled into family life and realized he's not really cut out for domestic living. Since society doesn't allow him to return his wife & children for a refund, he feels "trapped" in his boring existence. He lost his chances at "making something of himself".
From my work with the transgender community, I know several people who escaped into both of those lifestyles because they didn't know how to deal with who they are or were afraid to do so and, later in life, still found themselves profoundly unhappy.
They end up, in their 40s or 50s, trying to do what they wish they could've done when they were younger, only now they have an albatross around their necks that makes it even more difficult to pursue their happiness.
I guess I'm lucky in that I've never been either career-oriented or family-oriented. I have my friends and my hobbies, and I dearly love both, but I never had any desire whatsoever to either start a family or climb the corporate latter, and that's worked out well for me. I have lots of free time, and I have so little attachments that I was able to reinvent my life last year with minimal fuss.
I don't think #2 is a taboo subject, Meatloaf wrote a song about it[1] :-) it just doesn't make for an interesting story for a movie. It is also a self fulfilling prophecy to 'turn into a 40-something zombie' so you have to be careful there.
You really don't have to get caught up in consumerism to enjoy a city hub life, though I know it's hard and I've been there. If you're entirely happy about your small town friends, I'd say staying might be a good idea, but then a big city offers great opportunities for learning and opening your mind that don't depend on getting a fancy car: you'll meet fascinating and diverse people, places and teachers for whatever profession or hobbies you pursue.
Indeed, I'm just saying that having done all that and having been the one to say "there is more to life than this" and leaving in search of it, the conclusion I've drawn from the endless pursuit of ambition is to come full circle and realize: The more to life you're looking for was right under your nose all along, you just didn't realize it.
So long as you fit in those small-minded norms, you can go back and enjoy those things... given my hometown, that'll go fine so long as you aren't gay or nerdy or so many "different" characteristics. I'm sure you'll be very fulfilled at the trailer park you live in near the industrially-contaminated river while going to your minimum-wage job wiping old people's asses or working 14-hour days picking crops, competing against illegal migrants for wage, will really make you look forward to going home and communing while the neighbor's pit bull barks for hours while you try to sleep.
The last part of your post is overly negative. Small town life can be much, much better than that... though there are numerous poor rural areas where your description would fit.
The first part is spot on. I'd say it applies to most or perhaps even all human communities. We are hive animals, and our communities are only loving and welcoming if you are "one of us." I have never seen a lasting attempt to transcend that. Doing so would probably make us infinitely happier, but we are slaves to our inherited instinctive wiring.
So if you don't fit in, the big lonely machine is better than the small lonely persecution of your origin.
"I'm sure you'll be very fulfilled at the trailer park you live in near the industrially-contaminated river while going to your minimum-wage job wiping old people's asses or working 14-hour days picking crops, competing against illegal migrants for wage.."
I agree with you, but let's not overlook that life in a (world)city can also fit this description (replace picking crops with any menial labour). So the chips have to be stacked somewhat in your favour to benefit form these liberties.
A major benefit of leaving is to live free of parochial judgement (it is singular!) - just as you describe. Also the cultural benefits also are great - for whatever definition of culture you prefer.
Still, returning to see family feels like playing out Rilke's Prodigal son short.
There is nothing wrong with "wiping old people's asses" as you put it. My mother took care of ailing elderly people for years, and the world is better off because of it. And one of the kindest people I've ever met was a nursing assistant who helped me to the bathroom after I had surgery. Please be careful about looking down on valuable work just because it doesn't pay well or fit your idea of what a good life should include.
Edit: Oh, and by the way. My parents lives in a trailer park and they are very happy there. They no longer have a house full of junk and a yard that requires many hours every week to maintain.
You'd think after living outside the box for a while, you'd learn to think outside it. Just because you live in or move to a small town, doesn't mean you have to have a low paying dead end job just because it has (or doesn't) benefits or you can be part of a union. There are ways to carve a niche for yourself that is meaningful to yourself and your community that will allow you to live a comfortable life.
I mean really need: Clean air, clean water, shelter, nutrition, sanitation, family, community, companionship
Interestingly, big cities are bad at offering those. They are polluted, expensive (especially real-estate), fast-food, short-term relations, and bad-lack of services is common.
Sure you can get some quality and "top-notch" food, but you got to pay lots of premium for that.
Big cities are the pits at offering these. While they offer a wealth of culture, it's not really culture, it's some simile of something that looks kind of like some interpretation of what the presenter thinks culture looks like... the food, the art, the music. It can be awe inspiring and suck you in. You can get your hands on anything you want at a moment's notice, from fast food to "love" [you know that doesn't mean "love", right?] and anything in between, all you have to do is get out your wallet. Relationships are fast and loose, you barely know your neighbours - if indeed you've ever seen them through the peephole on your door, because lord knows you've never knocked on their door and said "Hey, I'm your neighbour, I just wanted to say hey, here's a cup of sugar". Your shoe box is worth a million bucks, you can stand in the middle of the room and touch both walls without moving. Your bed is hidden in a bookcase because it's the only way you can have living space and a bed. That's a million bucks... for a shoe box because *location, location, location!" For what? Because you can earn more money and climb the corporate ladder... except you get your pay cheque each month and it's all gone because living expenses in the city are through the 36 square feet of roof you can afford.
Meanwhile that guy living on minimum wage out in the country because that's the only job he can get has a shit paycheque that goes just as far as yours which has 2 more zeros on the end, he doesn't have to fight for room on the subway for the hour each way it takes you to get to work, he can drive to work in 5 minutes, his 1,500 square foot house costs him barely anything, it's on an acre of land, he grows all his own produce and has a cow for milk, yogurt and cheese and chickens for eggs. He hunts now and then to put meat in his freezer and needs for nothing. He knows and loves everyone and they all know and love him right back. If he has a fall or loses his job, everyone around him rallies to help him get back on his feet. What happens when that happens to you? [Of course, I don't mean you you, I mean hypothetical you that lives in the big city chasing the dream]
You're right to put happiness in terms of needs, instead of wants. There is this psychological system called Nonviolent Communication (NVC) that relies exactly on making this distinction between needs and wants. They have identified a list (an inventory of basic human needs). https://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory
Seeing this list of needs I'm wondering what kind of positive 'thing' doesn't fit in it one way or another. Didn't find any 'wants' inventory in there or anything else that could enlighten me on the distinction. If you don't mind, would you care elaborating a bit on that?
One thing I would likely miss living in a small forever is the intellectual input. Sure, it is nice to have exchanges through the Internet for that, but sometimes it is good to have some intriguing discussions with other driven people.
OTOH, the vibe/'cutting edge' in big cities is just a fad/false religion more often than not.
But I do think it is easier to find like-minded people or people to connect to in bigger social groups.
I agree. Pepe Mujica, President of Uruguay, gave a heartfelt speech a while ago. He argues exactly what you say and asks the most fundamental question: What do we actually need? The speech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYkaV-dN2Sg
This goes to show how the values of modern society are backwards.
We see advertisements depicting happy people using a product and striving towards it means a stressful life of work.
We covet status symbols that cause resentment in others.
We meticulously create artificial impressions of us that we publish on social networks which ultimately detach us from real social ties that would strengthen us, provide meaning and make us happier.
It takes awareness and courage to break free from such harmful habits when they are so ingrained throughout society.
The Dali Lama has some wonderful quotes around such subjects:
Man sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. Then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present: the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.
"Often attributed to the Dalai Lama, or as author shanx dee, this appears to be a loose adaptation of the work of Jim Brown, published by Reata Strickland as An Interview with God (ISBN 0743229576)."
I agree that more than one thing should matter, but our society is pretty hostile to that idea. Consider, for example, that for a large fraction of the population, marriage and kids are key relationships that will make them happy. Yet, we're the egg-freezing generation. We want kids, but we are also deeply afraid that having them will compromise our ability to compete.
> I agree that more than one thing should matter, but our society is pretty hostile to that idea.
Practically speaking our economy is more hostile to it than our society. It's just that it's really really hard to have marriage+kids in a nice neighborhood and compete at the same time; but by accounts people who can pull that off are considered winners.
It seems to me the only answer is having a very progressive, socialist economy which makes the marriage+kids easier. (Another alternative is resetting societal values to be less materialistic, but that ain't happening -- men will always want BMWs and iphones, a lot of women would still want that diamond stone).
Also, the egg-freezing scares the bejesus out of me. Someone pointed out in the thread about Chinese scientists tweaking human embryos that we know so little about things that while we may be thinking we've tweaked an embryo in a safe way, and a human is born of it, the really bad dysgenic properties may not be manifest until later in life. Egg-freezing stirs the same feelings in me. On a related note, one of my aunts is an ob/gyn doctor, and I've heard her say many times that for a very wide variety of reasons it is best that children be had earlier rather than later (20s instead of 30s, 30s instead of 40s, etc.) for both men and women (but especially women). I don't know what I'm getting at, I guess all I can say is, damn, we have it tough, I wish I knew of good answers.
Personally, I value relationships as much as I do ambition. I don't see the two as an either/or - it's a balancing act.
The big problem with the "progressive, socialist economy which makes marriage+kids easier" - it doesn't allow for choice. I may not want to have kids - so why should I be forced to go down that road (or work to support those who do)? Because a study tells me I'll be happier?
In the current system, the ones who are ultimately successful are the ones who find a way to strike a balance. That's difficult for everyone - and it's more difficult for some than others. But taking away one's choice of where to land on that balance beam seems like an even worse idea than the system we currently live in.
That being said, while I'm happy to agree to disagree with you there, I think we can both agree on one thing - in this game, there are no easy answers.
(On a completely difficult note - and perhaps the most philosophical discussion I've ever gotten into on an HN post - maybe that's what makes it valuable? Would life mean less if everything were easy?)
> We want kids, but we are also deeply afraid that having them will compromise our ability to compete.
Is that really what it is? I always figured it was something more like people waking up to the fact that retirement has ceased to exist, and deciding that they may as well have fun in their 20s/30s (when they are in peak condition to have such fun) and responsibilities in their later years, rather than the other way around.
I don't know how many people actually behave in this manner. Most of the people I know who don't have a lot of money floating around seem to have some incredible expense aside from pure status symbols; children, drug habits, gambling addictions; or are in low-income jobs.
This is (yet another) reason to read a little about philosophy. There was a chap called Epicurus who lived in Greece in about 300BC. Around that time the Greeks had city states with a wealthy elite, democracy, and status that arose from owning property. He taught the idea that those things didn't actually make you happy. Essentially he wrote that pleasure comes from avoiding suffering - and a desire to get more material goods leads to jealousy of those who have more which is a root cause of suffering. Epicurus taught that living a simple life with friends, food, exercise and art would make you truly happy.
He also invented epistemology which is pretty cool.
> Epicurus taught that living a simple life with friends, food, exercise and art would make you truly happy
He must have never heard of eating disorders and competition between artists.
Epictetus taught something that is similar to some kinds of buddhism. He was a Greek Stoic philosopher who was born a slave. Suffering is an inevitable part of life, and the best one can do is choose to be free from it in their mind. You either give the suffering power over you, or you separate yourself from it.
People can suffer over anything, but it is callous to assume that they can flip it off easily through the strength of mind, and it is naive to assume everyone has the same root causes of suffering. It is also naive to assume the process of alleviating suffering is the same for everyone in a general sense.
You can't get to your philosophy through the words of others. That is the most I have learned through every philosopher - that they did not choose to think to relieve the pain of others, but to first relieve it for themselves. How can you expect to teach something if you don't know that it works? And that is the problem I have with philosophy. You have to keep believing in it to make it work. This leads to study about the nature and existence of truth.
To notpick, Epicurus was not a stoic, he was a peer to Zeno and taught his own school. Epicurus's approach to suffering was essentially to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
he didn't write anything about overeating nor competing with artists. For me, message is clear - enjoy good food (quality over quantity), and enjoy arts - even seeing/reading/watching them gives many people including me a pleasant experience (a good step towards happiness)
Here's Alain de Botton in a 24m video on Epicurus and Happiness. In it, he goes over what Epicurus said is needed to attain happiness. The three things are essentially: self-sustainability, time to reflect and friends. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irornIAQzQY
I do like your comment about Epicurus. However I don't know if he invented epistemology as such. He certainly extended it. However, Plato discussed theories of knowledge in some of his dialogues well before this [0].
The article is well written, but the comparison is made on a false premise. People do not choose ambition over relationships, or vice-versa.
These terms are much more abstract than people think. The underlying denominator should be purpose, or rather definiteness of purpose. What I mean by that is, the arbiter of whether you should invest resources in your 'ambition' or your 'relationships' is the purpose with which you choose to live. If my self-determination and calling is to colonize mars and build self-driving cars to better humanity, I will position myself to do so, be it through relationships or allocation of other resources.
The problem is most people do not have a purpose, ambition can be interpreted both ways, as with everything. If I am defined by egotism and vanity, I might do almost anything I can to feed my vices, whether by buying cars, houses or spending money poorly. People would characterize me as ambitious, and they would be right, but it would be irrelevant, my purpose is built on a flawed foundation, a psychological need to prove myself to others.
TL;DR: We shouldn't be comparing terms without considering the purpose through which we choose our everyday actions.
You can be ambitious and have relationships. But let's not kid ourselves. People sacrifice relationships for their ambitions all the time. There was an article on HN two weeks ago about a game studio during a death march. How do you have time to bond with friends when you're at work 7 days out of the week and sleeping in a cot in your cubicle? (Even if you have friends at work, they probably aren't your best friends, and doing a death march isn't exactly quality time.)
This triggered some feelings in someone who lives thousands of kilometres away from their country home town. But when I stop to think about my own (ambitious) path, I considered something that this article doesn't: Can ambitious people be happy staying put?
I may not have the contentedness of the stay-at-home types, but I know for certain that I am a lot happier for leaving.
I think this is an interesting idea. Might it be that ambitious people are happy as they hunt their dreams and when achieving it need to dream bigger to be happy again.
and there lies their fallacy - sooner or later they'll reach a hill they cannot climb/run out of time/any other reason. Truly ambitious people I've met, on the outside, from the distance seem like ideal human beings - achieving a lot, always moving forward.
When I became to know them more, pattern was same - they will never be as happy as I am right now, was yesterday, will probably be tomorrow and so on. For them, life is never-ending race, at the finish line of one goal run for next one already begun. Somebody to run my country/company/whatever? Probably very good choice. Do I want this never-ending mental treadmill? Hell NO! :)
I had a Chinese Algorithms/Computer Graphics professor tell me something that has stuck with me for awhile. He said, "lower your expectations, and you will be happier" I have been ambitious for a long time , and this makes sense. Like saya-jin stated,
>>" For them, life is never-ending race, at the finish line of one goal run for next one already begun"
Life's short, ambition is a tiring habit.
I'm 24, B.S. comp sci degree, cg enthusiast, musician, and Jack of all trades - I'm headed out to SF California for a few weeks. I'm mostly doing it because I've wanted to see if I can look for VR development or at least see how they do it out there. What stories do I want to tell my kids and grandkids? What am I building for their generations? If I focus on always building and never investing in relationships, I won't see grandkids due to putting off life until the job gets done. If I focus on relationships and communities , there's a chance that I might never build anything "great" (or expensive/popular) for the world. There's a balance. I'm realizing now that if there was a black and white choice, I'd much rather have grandkids in a supportive community and build a love of computer graphics & community wherever I'm at.
Materialistic is not the only type of ambition. Are we actually sure it's not the problem with materialistic, rather than ambition?
It would be interesting to have such study comparing with another culture: specifically the Eastern culture. The level of constraint by relationships in Eastern society will laugh any idea of Western constraint out the main door (and the window, too!).
> Materialistic is not the only type of ambition. Are we actually sure it's not the problem with materialistic, rather than ambition?
This should be stressed. Look at 4nof and jasode's posts elsewhere in this thread: ambition to "start a family" can be just as harmful as ambition to "perform great works", "strike it rich", or "build a career". Relentless pursuit of any ambition can be detrimental to your happiness.
When society tells you "you have to be/do X in order to be happy", but you derive your happiness from Y (and what each person derives happiness from varies from person to person), then you're going to end up being very unhappy if you listen to society. And most people do listen to society since it's drummed into you at all ages and by all groups of people.
And then there's me: I'm very materialistic, but I'm not ambitious at all.
My only goal in life is to do everything I liked to do as a kid (or wanted to do, but couldn't), only without my parents and teachers to tell me I need to do something else. I eat ice cream whenever I want, my job involves taking things apart and figuring out how they work, I watch all the Netflix I want on nights and weekends, and I get to see the cute girl I always wanted to be in the mirror. I'm pretty happy with that... I'm basically living the life I always wanted to live.
Having grown up in a big city like Chicago, yes, ambition gets drilled into you at a young age. My dad was pretty ambitious and many of my extended family are the same way. So I turned out to be as ambitious as they are. Now that I'm 35, it seems that all those years of having spent "making sacrifices" were both good and bad.
I had to move to Minnesota to learn what it meant to have community. I'm a regular church attender but never really took part in church community life until, oh, 4 years ago. Prior to that I had friends but it was an arm's length friendship.
Having traveled, and some times traveling alone, true friends are a rarity and, even though the fame and glamour of a career is amazing, what the author's sister had was far more worthwhile knowing that as she passed, there were people around her that cared and loved her. I'm guilty of assessing small town people as "simple" but in reality, while some crave simplicity, it's not all that bad because these are people who genuinely care for each other's needs and burdens.
One thing I took away from that article is that my ambition - though good - can be used to help the people I love. If my ambitions drives me to make more or earn more, then there's no stopping me from giving more. Community is, in a sense, all about giving abundantly and receiving well.
As a "third country migrant", I see this whole post as some kind of B-grade Hollywood movie representation -- a place I cannot see myself fitting into in any way.
Immigrant communities in most parts of the world (esp. Indian/Chinese, that have moved to Middle East, America, EU) often grow in isolation from the locals. As such, the kids growing up there may feel camaraderie with their peers (fellow immigrants in their Asian-dominated school) but not really with the city. They go to the coffee shop and see someone "not like them" working there. They don't know what it's like growing up in our household. If the town isn't a higher education or career hotbed, we probably leave for college and never come back. Even when we visit home, none of our friends are there anymore.
I have no such thing as a home. I love my parents who are still together, but I can't relate to anything to their home -- where they grew up in their home country. The place I grew up in? Some strangers live there since it was some (series of) tiny rented apartments near my middle/high school. I am a foreigner everywhere I go.
But sometimes I'm in a city where I relate to more people, I make friends easily, the city cares about the same things as I do. It may feel like home. But often circumstances won't let someone like me stay in such a city long enough for it to really be my home. The city that feels closest to being home for me, I've spent merely 2 years in, during my early 20s. I haven't been able to go back the last 2 years, and I miss it like how I guess other people say they miss home, that I never understood until recently.
"Home" and "where are you from" are confusing and loaded phrases for many people like me.
As a first generation immigrant, you have no idea how much worse it is for me. Grew up in different cities in "home country". Moved to a new city in another country for college education. Moved to a different city for work. Next job took me to another place.
I've been lucky with friends. But yeah, I can sense your pain too!
But how can you (be happy to) come home without having been away? Maybe a lot of people need to have been out to try and experience things, only to return home a bit wiser and calmer.
Ideally you'd try many things in life when young and restless, and then let old age and wisdom decide what to prioritise (if life has given you the freedom of that choice).
The whole community got together and helped.... That's nice.
They seem to have left out the part where the whole community got together and talked smack about the person or avoided her or did any other number of things like this. There is much that is bad in small towns. Very much.
Some extra thoughts the article doesn't address...
1) the "ambition" may be deeply rooted in a person's genetics if it's connected to unchangeable personality traits like novelty seeking[1]. It would be a general feeling of wanderlust and/or wanting to make a change in the world. (e.g. The older brother Ron in the article.)
This would be contrasted with someone who has a genetic
disposition that prefers routine and familiarity. The visible effects we'd notice would be the person's need for long and stable relationships, and living in close proximity to his/her childhood home. (e.g. The sister Ruthie in the article.)
2) The "quality" of friends people are likely to encounter. Depending on the circumstances (e.g. living in Los Angeles), people can accumulate "friends" but those colleagues from work, fellow church members, etc are not necessarily free of materialism like the Amish neighbors or the Dali Lama. If one is living in Los Angeles, it may be hard to acquire genuine friends who are not plastic. When a difficult life event happens (like losing a job), many so-called "friends" will disappear. When you're hot, everybody wants to know you; when you're not, nobody returns your calls. It's not like the close-knit community of friends the article talks about.
3) a combination of the genetic disposition for restlessness and a society structure that often defaults to shallow friends, is it possible for some types of individuals for the correct advice to be turned on its head: "Ambition is more important than relationships."
Think of the mother who has a child (probably the most important "relationship" to nurture) but she is constantly resentful that parenting is blocking the life she could have had (actress, opera singer, etc). Or the adult son that stays in his small town home caring for his sick mother but harbors resentment over missing out on exciting opportunities in London/Manhattan. It's the whole "I could've been a contender!" sentiment. The mother may have been happier getting her tubes tied and pursuing her dreams. The son may have been happier finding other care giving arrangements for his elderly mother instead of being enslaved by a constant guilt trip.
For those folks, relationships are still important but it's the relationships that are a consequence of their ambitions that actually become meaningful.
I also think he conflated desire/aspiration with ambition. Aspiration is what makes you say you want to be the President when you grow up. Ambition is when you set on a path to make it happen.
My relationships are all over the place (literally, my few friendships are with people in different cities, on different continents), a consequence of them and I having left our own homes in search of something more, and at one time or another, ending up in the same cities.
Like Dreher, I left and haven't really looked back. But I didn't do it for that kind of ambition (ie, to attain material things or career advances), I did it simply to know the world better. It's very hard to reconcile my 'digital nomad' lifestyle with that of anyone else I meet. I have the hardest time meeting anyone who has forsaken ambition in the sense mentioned above.
Etymonline says this of ambition: "a going around," especially to solicit votes, hence "a striving for favor, courting, flattery; a desire for honor, thirst for popularity".
I definitely go around but not for those reasons. I simply seek better understanding of the world and myself, in addition to more knowledge. If I have any material goals, they're to have a small house that I build, in nature but near enough to the city, where I can grow some of my own food, have books, wifi, a motorcycle and a A-to-B car, working just for what I need. But I'm made to feel lesser than for wanting simplicity. In addition, I've been told I'll be 'old and alone' just because I don't wish to marry and have kids (even though I've had several long-term relationships and am in one right now). I've also been left behind by a lot of people I used to call friends because they took the traditional path and I have not.
The funny thing is, I'm not looking to be a monk nor to become a 'hippy in an alternative community'. I just feel like I'm normal but want simple things and a handful of good friends. How to reconcile this with what life keeps telling me, I don't know.
___
Some examples of people whose stories I've enjoyed:
"Pro-snowboarder, Mike Basich, tours his self-built 225 square foot home in the middle of his 40 acre snow covered property near Truckee, CA - and shows how being close to nature drives his most creative decisions." (7m)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sadOfmkTtpw
Daniel Norris signed a bonus worth just over $2 million to join the Blue Jays organization out of high school. While life on the road becomes normal for any pro athlete, the 21-year-old takes things to the next level by spending his summers living in a Volkswagen camper van. (6m)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKPa3uVddbU
David Welsford has given up the luxuries of land in search for happiness and adventure on a 50-year old wooden boat he restored from a scrap heap. (8m)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syJXrbWU1Aw
one personal advice - if you really, I mean really want to know yourself better, try psychedelics. What you will experience/learn cannot be foretold nor described by simple words, but it's a ultimate experience that no other approach to life can bring upon you (says somebody who backpacked in india/nepal for half a year, what an amazing time it was :))
Yea, but you only live once, and the most interesting thing you can do is build technology. Making things will always be more important to me than relationships.
What I really don't like about this kind of article is that it's really hard to get the gist of it without reading all the story telling in it. Is there something to learn inside, or is it "just" the life story of a few guys?
Glad I wasn't the only one struggling to figure out what the true value or insight this kind of articles provide, other than supplying random anecdotes regarding "paths of life".
To put it another way, if the coin was flipped and Mr. Rod Dreher stayed at his small home town, a place where he was bullied and misunderstood, instead of leaving for journalism career in big cities, then today he could very well be giving an interview about how he lacked courage to pursue his dream and how he had been trapped in an unhappy life because of that. Then an article would be produced on the detriments of not fighting back against the constraints of relationships and backwards communities.
We don't know. Would he be happy or unhappy if he stayed? The article (and all the 'academic' research mentioned) makes the answer to the question even more elusive.
I was the ambitious one, the one that strayed far from home, chasing the dream, getting caught up in the consumerism. I'm glad that by the age of 38 I have come to realize that I had everything that was important before I left. The remainder was a constant cycle of churn, want more, want bigger, want better, want newer, want more convenient. Except it's hard when it's being fed to you every day by every billboard, every sign, every menu, every advert, every press release, every news story, every TV show to differentiate between want and need. When you stop to analyze what you actually need - I mean really need: Clean air, clean water, shelter, nutrition, sanitation, family, community, companionship; how much of what you're being sold every day is truly "needed" and how much of it is a want to fulfill some notion that has been sold to you by the media?