11–20 of 30 posts
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.
"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
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 "mer…
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 goo…
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 "mer…
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 "mer…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 goo…
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.
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.
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
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'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 goo…
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.
In other words, can we make satuts into a partially-ordered set?
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 "mer…
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.