Between one-third and a half of everything I write for this blog never gets posted. Some drafts are simply unfocused rants, but other writings don’t make the cut because they become too personal. It doesn’t take a psychologist to realize my writing is obsessed with psychological evaluations of myself and those around me.
When I graduated from high school, I had no idea what I wanted out of life or what to expect of it. What I did know even then was that I wasn’t going to live life on anybody else’s terms. It would have never occurred to me to not go to college, but it is curious that I initially chose psychology as my major. The only class I liked in high school was history, but even at 16 I understood there was no such thing as a job liking history.
I was an optimistic teen, and believed I had a lot of wisdom to offer. I tend to consider I’ve changed drastically since then, but perhaps I’m the same person except after having ridden something of a rollercoaster nonstop for 20 years. So maybe I’m the same person only nauseous.
I have a bad habit of complaining a lot. Listening to anyone complain is exhausting. In my case it’s especially ridiculous, because my life is and generally has been wonderful. I have an instinctual urge to punch the faces of religious fanatics that constantly insist upon every occasion and circumstance, “my life is truly blessed,” but unlike those delusional hypocrites, my life is truly blessed.
It would be an understatement to point out that I am a passionate individual. I get really excited about things that excite me. The rest, whether bogus, inferior or plebeian, is irksome. I tend to speak and act rather extremely, and don’t have much patience for irrelevant niceties. The thing I am most passionate about is uncovering misconceptions, assumptions and lies, and this tends to insult those who insist on standing firm in theirs. I happen to be a compulsive thinker and researcher with a keen sense of logic, while most others tend to believe whatever makes them comfortable. Comforts often annoy me. People who insist on having them at all times unfailingly infuriate me.
While writing this blog, I spend a lot of time editing out subtle digs aimed at people I disdain who don’t even read this thing. I leave a few in just for good measure, but for the most part negative energy is wasted energy as it is not constructive. I never forget those who have been kind to me. Unfortunately, I also don’t tend to forget times when I’ve been disrespected, and so I must be diligent in reminding myself that there is little to be gained from wishing ill of others. I think the idea that karma exists is absurd, as it is but one of many examples of humans blindly insisting that what they hope is true actually is. It is as easy to find the rationale to justify any belief as it is difficult to entertain the probability that your beliefs are unfounded.
In writing this self-absorbed blog, I’ve had to learn to write as if I’m sharing all kinds of secrets while leaving out telling details that are really nobody’s business. Also, truth is sometimes grayed in favor of humor or cunning. As part of an intended jeer written in a recent unused draft, I observed: “The main skill in writing is demonstrating how crafty one can be at subterfuge.” Perhaps the greatest gift in writing is the opportunity it provides to inspire. This is precisely why the most inspiring people are the biggest liars.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
Expectations
I remember plenty of random occurrences. One of them was a late spring day in high school. I noticed the grass was getting tall and mowed it. The front yard AND the backyard, as I proudly and quickly pointed out to my dad after he got home from work. “Okay, that’s great,” he said. “You know,” he added after a pause, “you shouldn’t really expect to be praised for doing what’s expected of you.” That is a life truth I’ve held onto since.
One of Jesus’ teachings according to the New Testament is that humans were created unequally, and those who have been gifted with more (presumably intelligence, skill, wealth, beauty, etc.) are expected to accomplish, produce or deliver more (presumably guidance, succor, philanthropy, chastity, etc.). Jesus’ convictions are overrated, to state it mildly.
According to Genesis in the Old Testament, toil was created as punishment after humans gained independence by learning the difference between right and wrong. The transgression was that this was achieved by disobeying a direct order and trusting a creature other than God. The irony is that God had lied, telling Adam and Eve the fruit of the tree would bring not discernment but death, while the other creature had revealed the truth.
While the man made from dust and the woman made from a rib made from dust did in fact not die as a direct result of eating the fruit, God later on placed an angel with a flaming sword to prevent the couple from eating from another tree which presumably would have granted them eternal life, which he possibly hadn’t even told them about, but the need for its existence in the first place demonstrates that Adam and Eve were never immortal. Some 930 years later, Adam died, and while the exact cause of death is unstated, it was the same year as a physically impossible yet reportedly extremely disastrous flood. When Eve died was not considered noteworthy. No jury ever compiled would ever find that snake responsible for murder, or any other crime for that matter.
Honestly, I don’t know how anybody can read Genesis and then take any of the rest of the Bible seriously. I suppose that’s why most people skim over most of it as well as the rest of the Pentateuch.
The point of the lesson is that we (Jews, really) are expected to obey the one-and-only, unnamable, unstoppable, vitriolic God no matter what. The reality of the lesson is what the big G says is not all that trustworthy. I’d expect more from a being of God’s magnitude. He’ll get no praise from me. There’s no reason God should be expecting it anyhow.
One of Jesus’ teachings according to the New Testament is that humans were created unequally, and those who have been gifted with more (presumably intelligence, skill, wealth, beauty, etc.) are expected to accomplish, produce or deliver more (presumably guidance, succor, philanthropy, chastity, etc.). Jesus’ convictions are overrated, to state it mildly.
According to Genesis in the Old Testament, toil was created as punishment after humans gained independence by learning the difference between right and wrong. The transgression was that this was achieved by disobeying a direct order and trusting a creature other than God. The irony is that God had lied, telling Adam and Eve the fruit of the tree would bring not discernment but death, while the other creature had revealed the truth.
While the man made from dust and the woman made from a rib made from dust did in fact not die as a direct result of eating the fruit, God later on placed an angel with a flaming sword to prevent the couple from eating from another tree which presumably would have granted them eternal life, which he possibly hadn’t even told them about, but the need for its existence in the first place demonstrates that Adam and Eve were never immortal. Some 930 years later, Adam died, and while the exact cause of death is unstated, it was the same year as a physically impossible yet reportedly extremely disastrous flood. When Eve died was not considered noteworthy. No jury ever compiled would ever find that snake responsible for murder, or any other crime for that matter.
Honestly, I don’t know how anybody can read Genesis and then take any of the rest of the Bible seriously. I suppose that’s why most people skim over most of it as well as the rest of the Pentateuch.
The point of the lesson is that we (Jews, really) are expected to obey the one-and-only, unnamable, unstoppable, vitriolic God no matter what. The reality of the lesson is what the big G says is not all that trustworthy. I’d expect more from a being of God’s magnitude. He’ll get no praise from me. There’s no reason God should be expecting it anyhow.
Monday, June 6, 2011
The Confidence Paradox
While explaining the requirements of my next job during an unofficial exit interview with my immediate work superior a few weeks ago, I became keenly aware of her persistence and resolve in declaring, “I can’t.” Of course we all have limitations, but I’m generally opposed to imposing them untested upon oneself. Eventually I responded to yet another "I can't" with, “I guess the difference (between you and me) is that I can.”
I was suddenly confronted by my own hypocrisy. For years I have held onto the Existentialist concept that who we are is indefinable, because of utmost significance in our lives is what we are doing. I’ve long believed that defining oneself is necessarily a limitation that inaccurately denies potential. However regardless of its accuracy, mightn’t it be beneficially self-fulfilling to define oneself as having progressive traits, such as competence? Even defining oneself as indefinable is a definition that influences behavior. In fact, defining oneself as indefinable may well act as encouragement to behave unpredictably and an essential precursor to trying new things. Without trying new things, one becomes increasingly easy to define. Obituaries enthrall me.
That said; I am also very opposed to everyone following their so-called dreams- a direct result of my fascination with serial killers. Some people have pretty fucked up motivations, and perhaps not everyone should be happy. For years I’ve wondered why I pursued a psychology degree post high school, but besides thinking I had all the answers, I was really into reading books about murderous nut jobs back then. I firmly believe that as living beings, we are obliged to treat other living beings with respect, because as a living being, I believe I am worthy of being respected. I don’t trust the choices or opinions of those who don’t strive foremost to maintain this moral imperative. I have at times neglected to do so myself, and the results have been regrettable.
I was leaving this aforementioned job, which I had suffered through for four or five months, after it had become apparent the employment model was specifically intended to break down the will and esteem of its employees. The pay was performance based, and involved answering calls for a major corporation. The actual task to be performed was easy, which was fortunate considering we got no training, unless you count six weeks during which an indiscriminately hired group of us were babysat by various people with no job training experience, none of whom had done or knew how to do the job we were to do.
One advertised perk was that there was no script to follow. However, there was a continuously changing and increasing list of things we had to say on every phone call, much of which had nothing to do with the task. We were handed poorly structured and worded lists of clarifications, changes and reminders of things we had to say, and then they decided we couldn’t have any paper or writing utensils in our cubicles so the lists were taken away.
We had a supervisor and two other separate committees eavesdropping on our calls and rating them according to parameters unique to whichever group (and person in that group) it was. When we were reprimanded for doing whatever a spy, co-worker or floor adviser on a previous call had told us to do, we were told the information we received was incorrect, so we never had any way of being right ourselves. Time limits were imposed on everything, and then those time limits were decreased. We were allowed an unpaid lunch and two 15 minute breaks, all at strictly scheduled times, and if we wanted to log out of our phones at any other time for any other reason, including for completing work and using the restroom, we needed to get written permission.
One criterion affecting our pay was something called “Availability,” which needed to be at 75 then 78 then 85 percent, and nobody would or could tell me how that percentage was calculated. I received vague answers that it was a factor of various things that also already affected our pay, so if that was the case we were being penalized twice for the same transgressions.
The most complicated aspect of the actual work was manipulating around a dozen computer software systems simultaneously. If a system ran slow or crashed, it was considered our fault, and we were not allowed to tell a caller we were having computer problems. We had to constantly reset our passwords for getting into these systems, and had to make them sufficiently long and complicated under varying criteria depending on the program without reusing previous ones. Then, if we messed up a password three times in a row, we’d get locked out of the system and have to look for someone who could reset it for us and attempt to answer, “How can you forget your password?” Even clocking in had its set of rules and obstacles, which if were not followed precisely, caused us to lose attendance points, of which we were allowed eight a year.
We were forced to become obsessed with trying to follow hundreds of unclear, changing and absurd rules. It was vexing to say the least, and the very few who received their full potential pay had figured out the trick was to simply transfer most calls and were unethical enough to follow through with it. The only opportunity for promotion was to become a supervisor and involved taking a pay cut. Upper management was hired externally. We were considered not only incompetent but expendable. The only reason I could see for not finding a new job is that the employees who stay have been convinced they aren’t capable of finding or performing one.
Just before leaving, I met a fellow worker who had been there for 13 years. I thought to myself I couldn’t think of anything to worse, until she continued, “I have six children.” I stood corrected. But it was her next comment which is of relevance here: “When I first saw you, I thought you were some corporate big-shot here on an inspection or something.” I quickly shot back, “I should be.” I had entered that job out of desperation and already feeling defeated, so I found her assumption curious. While her statement mostly helped demonstrate her ineptitude, it was flattering. What about me had she said that made her think I was in charge? At that time, I appeared to myself as a short, scrawny reject with unkempt hair wearing hastily purchased Goodwill clothes.
Did I mention this phone job had a dress code? The reason for this, it became clear, was so that they could bribe us with the “reward” of being able to wear jeans. The given explanation was that studies had shown wearing business casual clothes increased performance. Nobody had an answer as to when, where, how or by whom these studies were conducted or published. If that claim has any validity, which I highly doubt, that means the result of their reward was to hinder our performance. I refused to wear jeans so that when I was reminded I could wear jeans that day, I could reply I only accepted monetary rewards. I think I was the only employee there that actually followed the dress code anyway.
Fashion is amongst our society’s most effective tools of manipulation. Fashion can be used to reveal, imply or hide both wealth and beauty. I despise pretense. The biggest factor in my fashion choices is that I get hot flashes very easily, and the best clothes to avoid these are loose fitting, short-sleeved and breathable (cotton). Before beginning my new job, I went around to thrift stores and bought a bunch of work-appropriate clothes, hoping that I would immediately appear as if I knew what I was doing. Now that I think about it, my so-called image has perhaps long been intended to express something akin to, “I know what I’m doing,” or, “Don’t irritate me,” with a hint of “I’m only kidding.” Sometimes girls I date will ironically attempt to get me to change my sense of style, which of course proves futile. Sometimes “just for spite” is motivation enough.
Have you ever heard anybody intone, “You don’t have anything to prove?” That’s a bunch of bullshit. Maybe life’s not a competition, but I want to be good at it anyway. I’m not going to waste time riding on someone else’s whims.
I was once made aware a liaison had ended with this explanation: “I used to find you intimidating, but I don’t anymore.” I was gobsmacked by this statement, not making heads or tails of how it was intended, and have frequently pondered it since. I undoubtedly have a tendency to come across as abrasive. I’m familiar with watching my friends tense upon me encountering their other friends for the first time, nervously anticipating how long it will take for me to challenge the validity of any off-handed remark. Bad liars and wishy-washy people don’t tend to like me. Sometimes I feel bad about this. Then I remind myself, “Fuck liars and wishy-washy people. I don’t like them either.” Sometimes that thought makes me feel even worse.
I’m generally not shy about expressing opinions accumulated from varied interests and acquired memories. People say I’m a snob; and I actually sort of prefer that to expert or connoisseur. Ignorance really annoys me and deserves to be eradicated, but I’ve been told on numerous occasions there are times I should keep quiet. I consider it is a defeatist attitude to resign to the idea that nobody’s going to change their mind anyway. Of course, it seems pretty unanimous that “it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it” that offends people. I’m certainly no politician. I’m confronted with either feeling guilty about my impudence or owning it. To phrase the question at hand as a philosopher: should we/I have confidence in confidence?
Confidence might be the purest expression of power, and vastly increases the likelihood of getting your own way. Encountering confidence can be simultaneously intimidating and stimulating. Confidence increases both the probability of and opportunity for rash behavior. Shame, on the other hand, is stilting and unbecoming. A causal relationship between attitudes and actions reveals itself....
Desire might be the impetus for change, but confidence allows its pursuit. Whether you actually want to be where you want to go remains to be seen, but oftentimes anywhere seems preferable to where you are. What can be done without confidence? The same thing you’ve been doing, I suppose, only probably not very well or with much enjoyment. Teddy Roosevelt said, “The person who has never failed has seldom done anything.” Just yesterday, I randomly read an article about some lady who’s had the same saving account since 1913, and her “secret” to living a long life was, “I get along good because I don’t have any wants.” While she has successfully gotten old, I frankly don’t understand the point of her continued existence.
The easiest way to gain confidence is by doing well at something, or at least being told that you are. No matter what endeavor one pursues, there will always be those nearby to tell you it can’t or shouldn’t be done or what you should be doing instead. My inclination is to dismiss disapproving people. While there is an advantage to having an objective perspective that should not be overlooked, life is not objective; besides- what does anybody else know?
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about humans, it’s that they are unreliable. Since the only person I can control is me, I have made it a point to try and be dependable- then at least I know I can rely on myself. Unfortunately, my decisions are sometimes extremely impulsive and occasionally morally suspect- qualities of an untrustworthy individual. In all truth, I can’t rely on myself either.
Confidence defined is faith in self; if you are confident you can pull off a miracle it vastly increases your odds of doing so. Sometimes ignorance is the source of confidence. Would I have moved 2000 miles to a major metropolitan area in my early 20’s to become an audio engineer if I’d known how little about engineering (and life) I knew? The fact that I’m always learning is proof of my ignorance. Only hindsight can discern the difference between confidence and over-confidence, but experience can provide clarity. It can blur it as well: confidence is why Douglas McArthur wanted to invade China when the North Korean army fled there in the 1950’s. Having confidence relies in part in being able to move on from past errors, learning from them what you can and ignoring whatever about them that isn’t instructional. Without confidence, we start looking, and finding excuses. Confidence attempts, at least, to find answers.
Confidence inclines us to attempt to improve at a difficult task. There’s a quote attributed to baseball pitching legend Dizzy Dean that goes, “It’s not braggin’ if you can back it up.” This is one reason I appreciate (some) sports. Athletes demonstrate the actual abilities of human beings to perform in a specific setting and time and within predefined parameters despite opposition and various other restrictions; not some fantasy engineered by a novel or movie in which all the environments, situations and characters can be manipulated at will. Pitching is the perfect example of something requiring utmost confidence. The worse possible pitcher is one lacking in it.
It is not only physically but also psychologically most difficult to pitch to a hitter you know can hit well, but the best pitchers will throw their best pitches to those batters. Critical situations will have the same effect. This truly defies logic. In the end, you might give up a home run. Maybe you should have walked the guy. Maybe you did everything right. The saying goes, “Sometimes you just gotta tip your cap.” Either way, you almost certainly don’t walk the batter after the one you gave up the home run to (and yet it happens all the time). Maybe the next time when a similar situation comes up, your strategy will be different. Then again, maybe you won’t. Maybe you should, maybe you shouldn’t. Regardless, every situation is different in a multitude of ways, and no moment in time is repeatable. The batter is always different; the conditions are always different; the situation is always different; how you’re feeling is always different. In the end, you just have to throw the pitch and see what happens.
Maybe we shouldn’t have confidence in confidence, but often we must. Without confidence you’ve already lost, with it you might anyway. Like the guy from Radiohead whines, “You can try the best you can, the best you can is good enough.” I agree with him even as I wish he’d shut up.
Anyone who attempts to sap your esteem is your enemy. My advice is to urgently remove yourself from their presence, and not for your sake alone. Anyone you let treat you like shit will then assume it is acceptable to treat others like shit. Rise against the machine, even if you do get run over by a tank.
I was suddenly confronted by my own hypocrisy. For years I have held onto the Existentialist concept that who we are is indefinable, because of utmost significance in our lives is what we are doing. I’ve long believed that defining oneself is necessarily a limitation that inaccurately denies potential. However regardless of its accuracy, mightn’t it be beneficially self-fulfilling to define oneself as having progressive traits, such as competence? Even defining oneself as indefinable is a definition that influences behavior. In fact, defining oneself as indefinable may well act as encouragement to behave unpredictably and an essential precursor to trying new things. Without trying new things, one becomes increasingly easy to define. Obituaries enthrall me.
That said; I am also very opposed to everyone following their so-called dreams- a direct result of my fascination with serial killers. Some people have pretty fucked up motivations, and perhaps not everyone should be happy. For years I’ve wondered why I pursued a psychology degree post high school, but besides thinking I had all the answers, I was really into reading books about murderous nut jobs back then. I firmly believe that as living beings, we are obliged to treat other living beings with respect, because as a living being, I believe I am worthy of being respected. I don’t trust the choices or opinions of those who don’t strive foremost to maintain this moral imperative. I have at times neglected to do so myself, and the results have been regrettable.
I was leaving this aforementioned job, which I had suffered through for four or five months, after it had become apparent the employment model was specifically intended to break down the will and esteem of its employees. The pay was performance based, and involved answering calls for a major corporation. The actual task to be performed was easy, which was fortunate considering we got no training, unless you count six weeks during which an indiscriminately hired group of us were babysat by various people with no job training experience, none of whom had done or knew how to do the job we were to do.
One advertised perk was that there was no script to follow. However, there was a continuously changing and increasing list of things we had to say on every phone call, much of which had nothing to do with the task. We were handed poorly structured and worded lists of clarifications, changes and reminders of things we had to say, and then they decided we couldn’t have any paper or writing utensils in our cubicles so the lists were taken away.
We had a supervisor and two other separate committees eavesdropping on our calls and rating them according to parameters unique to whichever group (and person in that group) it was. When we were reprimanded for doing whatever a spy, co-worker or floor adviser on a previous call had told us to do, we were told the information we received was incorrect, so we never had any way of being right ourselves. Time limits were imposed on everything, and then those time limits were decreased. We were allowed an unpaid lunch and two 15 minute breaks, all at strictly scheduled times, and if we wanted to log out of our phones at any other time for any other reason, including for completing work and using the restroom, we needed to get written permission.
One criterion affecting our pay was something called “Availability,” which needed to be at 75 then 78 then 85 percent, and nobody would or could tell me how that percentage was calculated. I received vague answers that it was a factor of various things that also already affected our pay, so if that was the case we were being penalized twice for the same transgressions.
The most complicated aspect of the actual work was manipulating around a dozen computer software systems simultaneously. If a system ran slow or crashed, it was considered our fault, and we were not allowed to tell a caller we were having computer problems. We had to constantly reset our passwords for getting into these systems, and had to make them sufficiently long and complicated under varying criteria depending on the program without reusing previous ones. Then, if we messed up a password three times in a row, we’d get locked out of the system and have to look for someone who could reset it for us and attempt to answer, “How can you forget your password?” Even clocking in had its set of rules and obstacles, which if were not followed precisely, caused us to lose attendance points, of which we were allowed eight a year.
We were forced to become obsessed with trying to follow hundreds of unclear, changing and absurd rules. It was vexing to say the least, and the very few who received their full potential pay had figured out the trick was to simply transfer most calls and were unethical enough to follow through with it. The only opportunity for promotion was to become a supervisor and involved taking a pay cut. Upper management was hired externally. We were considered not only incompetent but expendable. The only reason I could see for not finding a new job is that the employees who stay have been convinced they aren’t capable of finding or performing one.
Just before leaving, I met a fellow worker who had been there for 13 years. I thought to myself I couldn’t think of anything to worse, until she continued, “I have six children.” I stood corrected. But it was her next comment which is of relevance here: “When I first saw you, I thought you were some corporate big-shot here on an inspection or something.” I quickly shot back, “I should be.” I had entered that job out of desperation and already feeling defeated, so I found her assumption curious. While her statement mostly helped demonstrate her ineptitude, it was flattering. What about me had she said that made her think I was in charge? At that time, I appeared to myself as a short, scrawny reject with unkempt hair wearing hastily purchased Goodwill clothes.
Did I mention this phone job had a dress code? The reason for this, it became clear, was so that they could bribe us with the “reward” of being able to wear jeans. The given explanation was that studies had shown wearing business casual clothes increased performance. Nobody had an answer as to when, where, how or by whom these studies were conducted or published. If that claim has any validity, which I highly doubt, that means the result of their reward was to hinder our performance. I refused to wear jeans so that when I was reminded I could wear jeans that day, I could reply I only accepted monetary rewards. I think I was the only employee there that actually followed the dress code anyway.
Fashion is amongst our society’s most effective tools of manipulation. Fashion can be used to reveal, imply or hide both wealth and beauty. I despise pretense. The biggest factor in my fashion choices is that I get hot flashes very easily, and the best clothes to avoid these are loose fitting, short-sleeved and breathable (cotton). Before beginning my new job, I went around to thrift stores and bought a bunch of work-appropriate clothes, hoping that I would immediately appear as if I knew what I was doing. Now that I think about it, my so-called image has perhaps long been intended to express something akin to, “I know what I’m doing,” or, “Don’t irritate me,” with a hint of “I’m only kidding.” Sometimes girls I date will ironically attempt to get me to change my sense of style, which of course proves futile. Sometimes “just for spite” is motivation enough.
Have you ever heard anybody intone, “You don’t have anything to prove?” That’s a bunch of bullshit. Maybe life’s not a competition, but I want to be good at it anyway. I’m not going to waste time riding on someone else’s whims.
I was once made aware a liaison had ended with this explanation: “I used to find you intimidating, but I don’t anymore.” I was gobsmacked by this statement, not making heads or tails of how it was intended, and have frequently pondered it since. I undoubtedly have a tendency to come across as abrasive. I’m familiar with watching my friends tense upon me encountering their other friends for the first time, nervously anticipating how long it will take for me to challenge the validity of any off-handed remark. Bad liars and wishy-washy people don’t tend to like me. Sometimes I feel bad about this. Then I remind myself, “Fuck liars and wishy-washy people. I don’t like them either.” Sometimes that thought makes me feel even worse.
I’m generally not shy about expressing opinions accumulated from varied interests and acquired memories. People say I’m a snob; and I actually sort of prefer that to expert or connoisseur. Ignorance really annoys me and deserves to be eradicated, but I’ve been told on numerous occasions there are times I should keep quiet. I consider it is a defeatist attitude to resign to the idea that nobody’s going to change their mind anyway. Of course, it seems pretty unanimous that “it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it” that offends people. I’m certainly no politician. I’m confronted with either feeling guilty about my impudence or owning it. To phrase the question at hand as a philosopher: should we/I have confidence in confidence?
Confidence might be the purest expression of power, and vastly increases the likelihood of getting your own way. Encountering confidence can be simultaneously intimidating and stimulating. Confidence increases both the probability of and opportunity for rash behavior. Shame, on the other hand, is stilting and unbecoming. A causal relationship between attitudes and actions reveals itself....
Desire might be the impetus for change, but confidence allows its pursuit. Whether you actually want to be where you want to go remains to be seen, but oftentimes anywhere seems preferable to where you are. What can be done without confidence? The same thing you’ve been doing, I suppose, only probably not very well or with much enjoyment. Teddy Roosevelt said, “The person who has never failed has seldom done anything.” Just yesterday, I randomly read an article about some lady who’s had the same saving account since 1913, and her “secret” to living a long life was, “I get along good because I don’t have any wants.” While she has successfully gotten old, I frankly don’t understand the point of her continued existence.
The easiest way to gain confidence is by doing well at something, or at least being told that you are. No matter what endeavor one pursues, there will always be those nearby to tell you it can’t or shouldn’t be done or what you should be doing instead. My inclination is to dismiss disapproving people. While there is an advantage to having an objective perspective that should not be overlooked, life is not objective; besides- what does anybody else know?
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about humans, it’s that they are unreliable. Since the only person I can control is me, I have made it a point to try and be dependable- then at least I know I can rely on myself. Unfortunately, my decisions are sometimes extremely impulsive and occasionally morally suspect- qualities of an untrustworthy individual. In all truth, I can’t rely on myself either.
Confidence defined is faith in self; if you are confident you can pull off a miracle it vastly increases your odds of doing so. Sometimes ignorance is the source of confidence. Would I have moved 2000 miles to a major metropolitan area in my early 20’s to become an audio engineer if I’d known how little about engineering (and life) I knew? The fact that I’m always learning is proof of my ignorance. Only hindsight can discern the difference between confidence and over-confidence, but experience can provide clarity. It can blur it as well: confidence is why Douglas McArthur wanted to invade China when the North Korean army fled there in the 1950’s. Having confidence relies in part in being able to move on from past errors, learning from them what you can and ignoring whatever about them that isn’t instructional. Without confidence, we start looking, and finding excuses. Confidence attempts, at least, to find answers.
Confidence inclines us to attempt to improve at a difficult task. There’s a quote attributed to baseball pitching legend Dizzy Dean that goes, “It’s not braggin’ if you can back it up.” This is one reason I appreciate (some) sports. Athletes demonstrate the actual abilities of human beings to perform in a specific setting and time and within predefined parameters despite opposition and various other restrictions; not some fantasy engineered by a novel or movie in which all the environments, situations and characters can be manipulated at will. Pitching is the perfect example of something requiring utmost confidence. The worse possible pitcher is one lacking in it.
It is not only physically but also psychologically most difficult to pitch to a hitter you know can hit well, but the best pitchers will throw their best pitches to those batters. Critical situations will have the same effect. This truly defies logic. In the end, you might give up a home run. Maybe you should have walked the guy. Maybe you did everything right. The saying goes, “Sometimes you just gotta tip your cap.” Either way, you almost certainly don’t walk the batter after the one you gave up the home run to (and yet it happens all the time). Maybe the next time when a similar situation comes up, your strategy will be different. Then again, maybe you won’t. Maybe you should, maybe you shouldn’t. Regardless, every situation is different in a multitude of ways, and no moment in time is repeatable. The batter is always different; the conditions are always different; the situation is always different; how you’re feeling is always different. In the end, you just have to throw the pitch and see what happens.
Maybe we shouldn’t have confidence in confidence, but often we must. Without confidence you’ve already lost, with it you might anyway. Like the guy from Radiohead whines, “You can try the best you can, the best you can is good enough.” I agree with him even as I wish he’d shut up.
Anyone who attempts to sap your esteem is your enemy. My advice is to urgently remove yourself from their presence, and not for your sake alone. Anyone you let treat you like shit will then assume it is acceptable to treat others like shit. Rise against the machine, even if you do get run over by a tank.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)