TED Talk: A kinder, gentler philosophy of success(ted.com)
ted.com
TED Talk: A kinder, gentler philosophy of success
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_philosophy_of_success.html
7 comments
Thanks to whoever posted this! I've been agonizing over my career for years and have only just started to realize the truth (and beauty) in what he's saying.
I'd like to second that. Unfortunately we can only vote once. But this talk is now tied with Jill Bolte Taylor's as my favorite Ted talk. Thanks for posting.
Interesting. I'd tie de Botton's with Liz Gilbert's talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html) for first.
For those that haven't seen it, it's really worth your time. Her speech skims across the surface of several ideas, and in the last few minutes comes together into an elegant and cohesive whole. I wish I could speak like that.
For those that haven't seen it, it's really worth your time. Her speech skims across the surface of several ideas, and in the last few minutes comes together into an elegant and cohesive whole. I wish I could speak like that.
I love this kind of TED talks.
One of Alain's main arguments was that the "kinder, gentler" philosophy of success should partly be based on the negative implications of meritocracy, i.e. "if you are at the bottom, you deserve to be there and thus you're a looser". But to meritocracy's defense -- isn't it more fair to say that "if you are at the bottom, you can with an effort pull yourself out of there"? And thus "merit" a better position in the social hierarchy?
For me, once anyone at the bottom make the slightest effort to rise, they are instantly rising in social hierarchy. Thus, it's all up to themselves, and it's all based on a choice. Make a decision, and merit follows.
I'm not sure what I want to say with this argument. But somehow, the criticism forwards meritocracy seemed a little shallow in the talk.
One of Alain's main arguments was that the "kinder, gentler" philosophy of success should partly be based on the negative implications of meritocracy, i.e. "if you are at the bottom, you deserve to be there and thus you're a looser". But to meritocracy's defense -- isn't it more fair to say that "if you are at the bottom, you can with an effort pull yourself out of there"? And thus "merit" a better position in the social hierarchy?
For me, once anyone at the bottom make the slightest effort to rise, they are instantly rising in social hierarchy. Thus, it's all up to themselves, and it's all based on a choice. Make a decision, and merit follows.
I'm not sure what I want to say with this argument. But somehow, the criticism forwards meritocracy seemed a little shallow in the talk.
One distinction that is useful is looking at things in absolute terms or in terms of rankings. In a ranking system, someone is always going to come out the winner, and someone on the bottom. At the Tour de France, someone wins, a bunch of other guys don't, and someone comes in last, even though they are all extremely talented and fast cyclists. In business, someone might make the most money, but most people doing good work create value for society, and increase total wealth, without it necessarily being at the cost of someone else.
In other words, ranking systems and contests are zero sum games, whereas plenty of other things are not.
In other words, ranking systems and contests are zero sum games, whereas plenty of other things are not.
status is a zero sum game, while the economy is not. one can't generally create status without lowering the status of those around you, the same is not true for wealth.
There's a great cartoon about how status is zero-sum, but technological improvement is not: Two voices come from a futuristic building, complaining that no matter how much technological process, not everyone is happy, because their happiness is based on being "better" than others, and not on absolute improvement.
"Yeah. And that's where we come in," complains one voice sadly.
"But on the other hand, in what other era could a toaster and a coffee pot even be having this conversation?" reasons the other.
"Yeah. And that's where we come in," complains one voice sadly.
"But on the other hand, in what other era could a toaster and a coffee pot even be having this conversation?" reasons the other.
Is that realy so? Can we create system where person A is realy good at X, and person B is really good at Y, and thus both are respected (and respecting each other)?
In other words, can we make satuts into a partially-ordered set?
In other words, can we make satuts into a partially-ordered set?
not as long as demand for attractive women far outpaces supply.
to some extent. wealth and the economy are complex systems with limited resources.
It is easy to interpret some of what he said as a criticism of meritocracy, but I don't believe there was any. I think what he was trying to say is that meritocracy is great, but we often use the concept to justify cruel attitudes or judgments.
In fact, he took the pains to make it clear that he politically supports meritocracy during his talk. So, yes.
Good arguments. Anything taken to the extreme is bound to have negative implications, including meritocracy.
I would disagree about how much choice we have once you are down and out. I would like to think otherwise but I'm where I am because of where I was born, my family, friends and circumstances. May be some choices I've made here and there might have made a difference. On the other hand, I've know so many people who were much smarter than I will ever be, end up in bad social standing because of the things I've mentioned like family.and circumstances.
I would disagree about how much choice we have once you are down and out. I would like to think otherwise but I'm where I am because of where I was born, my family, friends and circumstances. May be some choices I've made here and there might have made a difference. On the other hand, I've know so many people who were much smarter than I will ever be, end up in bad social standing because of the things I've mentioned like family.and circumstances.
I don't think he was saying meritocracy equals bad. It's more like he's saying look, here are some effects of meritocracy that we should consider
"A lot of times our ideas of what it is like to live successfully are not our own. If you're a man, your father. If you're a woman, your mother.. We are highly open to suggestion. We should be truly the authors of our own ambitions. It is bad enough to not get what you want but even worse to find out at the end of the journey that what you got is not what you wanted."
"That problem is envy. If there is one dominant emotion in modern society - that is envy. And it's linked to the spirit of equality. We don't envy the Queen of England...because we can't relate to her... And when you can't relate to somebody, you don't envy them. The closer two people are in age, in background, in the process of identification, the more there is a danger of envy... Which is why you should never go to the same school but.. The problem of modern society is it turns the whole world into a school - everybody is wearing jeans and the same and yet they're not."
"One of the reasons we fear failure... is the judgment and ridicule of others. The number one organ of ridicule is the newspaper... they have failed and they are described as losers."
"We tend to worship ourselves. Our heroes are human heroes. Most other societies have had at that center something that is transcendent. A God, a spirit, a natural force, the universe"
-Alian de Botton
"That problem is envy. If there is one dominant emotion in modern society - that is envy. And it's linked to the spirit of equality. We don't envy the Queen of England...because we can't relate to her... And when you can't relate to somebody, you don't envy them. The closer two people are in age, in background, in the process of identification, the more there is a danger of envy... Which is why you should never go to the same school but.. The problem of modern society is it turns the whole world into a school - everybody is wearing jeans and the same and yet they're not."
"One of the reasons we fear failure... is the judgment and ridicule of others. The number one organ of ridicule is the newspaper... they have failed and they are described as losers."
"We tend to worship ourselves. Our heroes are human heroes. Most other societies have had at that center something that is transcendent. A God, a spirit, a natural force, the universe"
-Alian de Botton
Really liked this.
For anyone who has read Alain de Botton: Could you recommend some of his books? I'm really interested in checking out his work after watching this.
For anyone who has read Alain de Botton: Could you recommend some of his books? I'm really interested in checking out his work after watching this.
This talk is derived from his book "Status Anxiety" as is the documentary of the same name which is available on Youtube in low quality:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=336D8AE0334C5C91
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=336D8AE0334C5C91
I learned a huge amount from reading this book. I bought it second hand for perhaps 3 pounds. If it had cost 100 pounds it would still have been worth it for the gems I got out of it!
I have just finished reading "The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work" which I thought was fantastic. Particularly the chapter where he follows a high voltage electricity line across southern England until it disappears underground in London. He walks with a man who's a 'pylon geek' essentially and it's wonderful.
I read that one recently too. I liked it... something pleasantly British about it (I don't know how else to describe it).
I really enjoyed reading The Consolations of Philosophy by him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Consolations_of_Philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Consolations_of_Philosophy
I once picked up de Botton's "How Proust can change your Life" in an airport impulse purchase; found it disappointing. But based on others' positive reviews of his other works, I might check those out.
Looks like everyone has a different AdB favourite. I think I enjoyed "On Love" most.
I've only read "The Architecture of Happiness", but I really enjoyed it.
Tyler Brulé of Monocle did an interview with Alain covering his recent book. Typical of Tyler it isn't the usual puff piece but he actually pokes for real substance.
http://www.monocle.com/sections/culture/Web-Articles/Alain-d...
http://www.monocle.com/sections/culture/Web-Articles/Alain-d...
Amazing talk.
The idea that you should define your success by what you are willing to lose/give up on resonated strongly with me. A few years back, I gave up a much better paying job and 'better' career prospects in the US after an Ivy League education, to move back home and stay closer to my dad (who'd just suffered a catastrophic stroke). While I might not be considered super successful in the popular sense, I've redefined the meaning of success for myself. I've realized I value relationships over traditional measures of success and I am willing to lose some of the latter to get more of the former.
Incidentally, this realization has been strangely liberating. I'm completely at ease at college reunions, even when I get the odd snicker from classmates who are more 'successful'.