Are we a low risk, low reward society?

[hateraid]

Do you find that people in general are a minimal effort society? That they are willing to accept the low risk low reward route over putting maximum effort to achieve the highest goal possible? Whether it be marriage, relationships, occupation, personal goals and records?
I think even the effort to be courteous and proper etiquette is very minimal.

What do you posters think?

[joe]

I think if I had to guess, people in general would prefer to do the least effort possible. It is just natural. Putting in effort takes energy, it is painful, distressing. People would rather do the least amount possible for the lowest threshold of life they are willing to accept.

Having nothing to do, no responsibilities, no need to really do anything you don't want to at any time- that is what people are striving for. Retirement, vacation, weekends. We work only to earn those sweet moments of nothing..

[hateraid]

I think if I had to guess, people in general would prefer to do the least effort possible. It is just natural. Putting in effort takes energy, it is painful, distressing. People would rather do the least amount possible for the lowest threshold of life they are willing to accept.

Having nothing to do, no responsibilities, no need to really do anything you don't want to at any time- that is what people are striving for. Retirement, vacation, weekends. We work only to earn those sweet moments of nothing..
I find that resonates in a lot of different aspects in life
My marriage is rough...I'll just divorce, much simpler
I want to be a successful business owner...I'll never get there, I'm comfortable being an assistant manager. It's enough to get me by
I can't lose weight no matter what I do...What's a good weight loss pill where I don't have to exercise?

This is how I see the world

[joe]

I find that resonates in a lot of different aspects in life
My marriage is rough...I'll just divorce, much simpler
I want to be a successful business owner...I'll never get there, I'm comfortable being an assistant manager. It's enough to get me by
I can't lose weight no matter what I do...What's a good weight loss pill where I don't have to exercise?

This is how I see the world

I think a lot of people are that way. Not all though. Look at like, Stephen Curry. The amount of hours and effort this guy must have put in to be as great of a shooter as he is. Lawyers who will work 16 hour days during a big case.

The weight loss thing I definitely notice. Because I do a version of paleo, and so every time someone complains to me about their weight, I excitedly tell them about this diet I do. I tell them they are guaranteed to lose weight doing it, there is no question about it. I show them success stories, before and after pictures of people losing TREMENDOUS amounts of weight. I tell them about all the great foods you can still eat, and how you never have to count calories or starve yourself. And all I hear is.. ''but I couldn't live without pizza. I couldn't live without bagels. I couldn't live without Hershey bars.'' I understand that it is not easy, but people just dismiss it the second they realize there is some small level of sacrifice.

[iamgine]

It's true to some extent. Did you know Einstein was said to have 20 identical suit so he doesn't have to spend any thought on what to wear? What a low effort bastard.

People would, as you said, settle for being an assistant manager yet they update their facebook all day long. That's actually a lot of effort. They're actually putting a lot of effort into things, just not the things where they don't enjoy the process and have uncertain outcome.

[NumberSix]

Security vs potential of high reward.

This is why business owners rightfully make way more than their employees. The employee gets his same paycheck whether the business has a good month or a bad month. The employee seems to think he should get more when the company does really well, but he never thinks he should take less when the company does poorly. The security of always getting the same paycheck has a cost. If the company makes a huge profit, the guy taking the risks gets the payoff.

[hateraid]

It's true to some extent. Did you know Einstein was said to have 20 identical suit so he doesn't have to spend any thought on what to wear? What a low effort bastard.

People would, as you said, settle for being an assistant manager yet they update their facebook all day long. That's actually a lot of effort. They're actually putting a lot of effort into things, just not the things where they don't enjoy the process and have uncertain outcome.

On the contrary I think social media is the laziest way to maximize communication to reach the most people

[Siemens]

It is true for many, but some definitely take a shot, usually at some sort of celebrity stardom, and most of those fall flat.

[32jazz]

Do you find that people in general are a minimal effort society? That they are willing to accept the low risk low reward route over putting maximum effort to achieve the highest goal possible?

What do you posters think?

What's wrong with choosing security over the real pitfalls of high risk?

"Everybody's got a space to fill....Everybody can't be on top"-Prince Rogers Nelson


I know a person(& other people I'm sure) who practices their musical instruments & studies music for hours to detriment of their personal/financial lives ,but have no music contract. Justin Beiber is worth millions.

When do you accept reality & your lot in life?

Or does one spend their lives continually engaging in high risk pursuits that keeps them financially & emotionally bankrupt?


"Everybody can't be on top".

[hateraid]

What's wrong with choosing security over the real pitfalls of high risk?

"Everybody's got a space to fill....Everybody can't be on top"-Prince Rogers Nelson


I know a person(& other people I'm sure) who practice their musical instruments & study music for hours to detriment of their personal/financial lives ,but have no music contract. Justin Beiber is worth millions.

When do you accept reality & your lot in life?

Or does one spend their lives continually engaging in high risk pursuits that keeps them financially & emotionally bankrupt?


"Everybody can't be on top".


But if that's your approach in EVERYTHING in life then it's called being mediocre. It's one thing to be realistic, it's another thing to brush everything off and chose the minimal requirement.

[hateraid]

The best way? Something not taking much effort doesn't mean it's lazy


I agree it's the best way. But isn't that the definition of going the route with the least amount of effort? I wasn't criticizing it. The response to me before pointed out how much effort it takes to use social media.

[joe]

What's wrong with choosing security over the real pitfalls of high risk?

"Everybody's got a space to fill....Everybody can't be on top"-Prince Rogers Nelson


I know a person(& other people I'm sure) who practices their musical instruments & studies music for hours to detriment of their personal/financial lives ,but have no music contract. Justin Beiber is worth millions.

When do you accept reality & your lot in life?

Or does one spend their lives continually engaging in high risk pursuits that keeps them financially & emotionally bankrupt?


"Everybody can't be on top".

For some people life is not worth living if you aren't taking those risks. Maybe this person you know would rather fail tragically with their music than succeed marginally and accept their lot in life.

[iamgine]

On the contrary I think social media is the laziest way to maximize communication to reach the most people
It's still a large effort on their part. You can substitute that example with, doing makeup, gardening, knitting etc.

[joe]

Or maybe they just like playing music and don't want to be a pop sensation

Sometimes I dream, that Bieber is me

[hateraid]

I know a person(& other people I'm sure) who practices their musical instruments & studies music for hours to detriment of their personal/financial lives ,but have no music contract. Justin Beiber is worth millions.

When do you accept reality & your lot in life?

Or does one spend their lives continually engaging in high risk pursuits that keeps them financially & emotionally bankrupt?


"Everybody can't be on top".

By this theory it means nobody should try. So it's a bad example. That and the fact the Beiber's of the world struck a lottery in the industry. They're incredibly lucky. There are billions of baby faces with his musical talent that didn't catch the same break.
Also do apply this to my example of marriage? Do you look around and say, "Well the divorce rate is at 60%, I'll stay married for the norm." What of all the relationships and bonds created within the family? What of all the time and effort to build it? It's easier to just divorce once it goes wrong. Should that be the social norm?

[sundizz]

Humans are simply creatures of habit and circumstance. There are very rare exceptions.

It is equally easy/hard to be a CEO and to be a sanitation worker. People are not inherently looking for the low risk, low reward lifestyle.

They are simply being "human" and protecting their basic knowledge of how to survive. In our minds, failing in the modern world is equal to failing at hunting in caveman days = death. Though that is not the true reality of our world, our fear of failure/unknown is what got us to this point as civilization. The ability to survive was the predominant theme of human history up until the last 100 or so years.

You had to be careful and prepare for worse days - relative safety, shelter, food, water, etc were not all givens like we have today.

[joe]

By this theory it means nobody should try. So it's a bad example. That and the fact the Beiber's of the world struck a lottery in the industry. They're incredibly lucky. There are billions of baby faces with his musical talent that didn't catch the same break.
Also do apply this to my example of marriage? Do you look around and say, "Well the divorce rate is at 60%, I'll stay married for the norm." What of all the relationships and bonds created within the family? What of all the time and effort to build it? It's easier to just divorce once it goes wrong. Should that be the social norm?

People are really selfish and shallow a lot of times. What you did in the past, as a husband or wife, is dismissed the second you are no longer as needed. The worst part is, you can't really blame people for reacting this way. Why should they stick in relationships that are no longer fulfilling their purpose? But it feels wrong to just be dropped, despite your long history with this person. And they can just go out and live their new, great life, while you are dismissed and not cared about.

I've never been married, lol. But this is one of my biggest fears with a relationship How can you really depend on it?

[iamgine]

People are really selfish and shallow a lot of times. What you did in the past, as a husband or wife, is dismissed the second you are no longer as needed. The worst part is, you can't really blame people for reacting this way. Why should they stick in relationships that are no longer fulfilling their purpose? But it feels wrong to just be dropped, despite your long history with this person. And they can just go out and live their new, great life, while you are dismissed and not cared about.

I've never been married, lol. But this is one of my biggest fears with a relationship How can you really depend on it?
That's the wrong view of romantic relationship though. If the reason people get together is to fulfill their own needs then it's not a real relationship. There should be a mutual feeling of caring for the other person and having his/her happiness becoming your own. Basically this person, not yourself, becomes your purpose and vice versa.

Think of it like the relationship between a loving mother and son. A mother really want nothing out of her son but his happiness, and will go to great sacrifice to ensure that. Will she ever "drop" her son if she finds a better opportunity for herself? Or if her son becomes a huge burden? Her son might, but not her.

I once thought it's unrealistic, but then I realized it's simply a commitment.

[Dresta]

We're for sure a cowardly society, one that can be drummed into a fearful hysteria on the flimsiest pretences, which is why disgraceful US politicians seem to always be able to advance their careers by making war and imposing themselves on other countries (turning them into wastelands in the meantime).

It's pretty well known that this is the case, and that the vast majority of mankind prefer safety to freedom (just look at the size of the state, look how planned and regimented life is made), because freedom is hard: it entails patience, discipline, hardness, strength, and most of all, taking responsibility for oneself, not making petty excuses and blaming others for everything that goes wrong in your life: amor fati.

Everything has become about convenience, about the mindless seeking of pleasure, and as a consequence, most are now completely ignorant regarding the foundations of most of our valued institutions. They have no awareness of the instincts that gave birth to and preserve such institutions, and out of which the future grows - these instincts are dead in modern man (and perhaps nothing irritates the spirit of modernity more so than this, because its proponents refuse to recognise they have vaulted mankind into an inhuman vacuum, one that seeks the abolition of the chains between generations that hold all civilised societies together). But the preservation of institutions is contingent on valuing them above such things as transient pleasure, of appeasing a certain group of people, etc. Thus all institutions depend on an anti-liberal impulse: the will to authority, tradition, and a responsibility for the centuries to come, a perpetual awareness of the link that binds the present to the past and the past to the future (thus why abolishing long-established institutions for the sake of it, because one cannot directly observe their utility, is pure foolishness).

Take marriage, for example: people always complain about the redefinition of marriage with homosexuals, but the fatal redefinition had already occurred long before this (homosexual marriage being a mere extension of it). All rationality has clearly evaporated from this institution, and yet people still utilise it, largely because of some childish ideal they hold in their heads, that marriage can be based on love and not be simply a form of arranged expedience between partners (based on the drive to property, the desire to dominate - in the smallest realm of dominion - the family, and the need to produce children and heirs, to pass down something of yourself, to preserve your wealth). It's a symbol of the solidarity of instinct between the centuries, and its decline is a fitting representation of how little the present generation care about the future, and the generations to come. Its essence is unconditional commitment to the other and to the production and preservation of the family unit.

Hence marriage is pursued now simply as an end rather than a means, expelling all real meaning from the thing, with the exception of symbolic meaning (and of convenience, of pleasure). Why do you think the divorce rates are so high? Because people have childish, unrealistic expectations of what marriage entails, so when they encounter difficulty, the best option is to high tail it (whereas the strength of marriage as an institution came from its indissolubility, which gave it greater gravitas than nearly all other things, which were momentary, fleeting). If marriage is to based on love, then what purpose does it serve, what utility does it satisfy? None at all: you might as well build marriage on a heap of sand. It's simply become another matter of convenience, along with everything else. We already long ago killed marriage as an institution of importance; what you see now is simply the afterglow of its abolishment.

So yes, though i would say we're a low-risk society that demands high rewards, and wants someone else to pay for them (while refusing to risk their own necks to attain it). Perhaps this is the consequence of the lack of hardship and privation, who knows? People are certainly softer than they have ever been before.

[Im Still Ballin]

We're for sure a cowardly society, one that can be drummed into a fearful hysteria on the flimsiest pretences, which is why disgraceful US politicians seem to always be able to advance their careers by making war and imposing themselves on other countries (turning them into wastelands in the meantime).

It's pretty well known that this is the case, and that the vast majority of mankind prefer safety to freedom (just look at the size of the state, look how planned and regimented life is made), because freedom is hard: it entails patience, discipline, hardness, strength, and most of all, taking responsibility for oneself, not making petty excuses and blaming others for everything that goes wrong in your life: amor fati.

Everything has become about convenience, about the mindless seeking of pleasure, and as a consequence, most are now completely ignorant regarding the foundations of most of our valued institutions. They have no awareness of the instincts that gave birth to and preserve such institutions, and out of which the future grows - these instincts are dead in modern man (and perhaps nothing irritates the spirit of modernity more so than this, because its proponents refuse to recognise they have vaulted mankind into an inhuman vacuum, one that seeks the abolition of the chains between generations that hold all civilised societies together). But the preservation of institutions is contingent on valuing them above such things as transient pleasure, of appeasing a certain group of people, etc. Thus all institutions depend on an anti-liberal impulse: the will to authority, tradition, and a responsibility for the centuries to come, a perpetual awareness of the link that binds the present to the past and the past to the future (thus why abolishing long-established institutions for the sake of it, because one cannot directly observe their utility, is pure foolishness).

Take marriage, for example: people always complain about the redefinition of marriage with homosexuals, but the fatal redefinition had already occurred long before this (homosexual marriage being a mere extension of it). All rationality has clearly evaporated from this institution, and yet people still utilise it, largely because of some childish ideal they hold in their heads, that marriage can be based on love and not be simply a form of arranged expedience between partners (based on the drive to property, the desire to dominate - in the smallest realm of dominion - the family, and the need to produce children and heirs, to pass down something of yourself, to preserve your wealth). It's a symbol of the solidarity of instinct between the centuries, and its decline is a fitting representation of how little the present generation care about the future, and the generations to come. Its essence is unconditional commitment to the other and to the production and preservation of the family unit.

Hence marriage is pursued now simply as an end rather than a means, expelling all real meaning from the thing, with the exception of symbolic meaning (and of convenience, of pleasure). Why do you think the divorce rates are so high? Because people have childish, unrealistic expectations of what marriage entails, so when they encounter difficulty, the best option is to high tail it (whereas the strength of marriage as an institution came from its indissolubility, which gave it greater gravitas than nearly all other things, which were momentary, fleeting). If marriage is to based on love, then what purpose does it serve, what utility does it satisfy? None at all: you might as well build marriage on a heap of sand. It's simply become another matter of convenience, along with everything else. We already long ago killed marriage as an institution of importance; what you see now is simply the afterglow of its abolishment.

So yes, though i would say we're a low-risk society that demands high rewards, and wants someone else to pay for them (while refusing to risk their own necks to attain it). Perhaps this is the consequence of the lack of hardship and privation, who knows? People are certainly softer than they have ever been before.
:applause:

[hateraid]

We're for sure a cowardly society, one that can be drummed into a fearful hysteria on the flimsiest pretences, which is why disgraceful US politicians seem to always be able to advance their careers by making war and imposing themselves on other countries (turning them into wastelands in the meantime).

It's pretty well known that this is the case, and that the vast majority of mankind prefer safety to freedom (just look at the size of the state, look how planned and regimented life is made), because freedom is hard: it entails patience, discipline, hardness, strength, and most of all, taking responsibility for oneself, not making petty excuses and blaming others for everything that goes wrong in your life: amor fati.

Everything has become about convenience, about the mindless seeking of pleasure, and as a consequence, most are now completely ignorant regarding the foundations of most of our valued institutions. They have no awareness of the instincts that gave birth to and preserve such institutions, and out of which the future grows - these instincts are dead in modern man (and perhaps nothing irritates the spirit of modernity more so than this, because its proponents refuse to recognise they have vaulted mankind into an inhuman vacuum, one that seeks the abolition of the chains between generations that hold all civilised societies together). But the preservation of institutions is contingent on valuing them above such things as transient pleasure, of appeasing a certain group of people, etc. Thus all institutions depend on an anti-liberal impulse: the will to authority, tradition, and a responsibility for the centuries to come, a perpetual awareness of the link that binds the present to the past and the past to the future (thus why abolishing long-established institutions for the sake of it, because one cannot directly observe their utility, is pure foolishness).

Take marriage, for example: people always complain about the redefinition of marriage with homosexuals, but the fatal redefinition had already occurred long before this (homosexual marriage being a mere extension of it). All rationality has clearly evaporated from this institution, and yet people still utilise it, largely because of some childish ideal they hold in their heads, that marriage can be based on love and not be simply a form of arranged expedience between partners (based on the drive to property, the desire to dominate - in the smallest realm of dominion - the family, and the need to produce children and heirs, to pass down something of yourself, to preserve your wealth). It's a symbol of the solidarity of instinct between the centuries, and its decline is a fitting representation of how little the present generation care about the future, and the generations to come. Its essence is unconditional commitment to the other and to the production and preservation of the family unit.

Hence marriage is pursued now simply as an end rather than a means, expelling all real meaning from the thing, with the exception of symbolic meaning (and of convenience, of pleasure). Why do you think the divorce rates are so high? Because people have childish, unrealistic expectations of what marriage entails, so when they encounter difficulty, the best option is to high tail it (whereas the strength of marriage as an institution came from its indissolubility, which gave it greater gravitas than nearly all other things, which were momentary, fleeting). If marriage is to based on love, then what purpose does it serve, what utility does it satisfy? None at all: you might as well build marriage on a heap of sand. It's simply become another matter of convenience, along with everything else. We already long ago killed marriage as an institution of importance; what you see now is simply the afterglow of its abolishment.

So yes, though i would say we're a low-risk society that demands high rewards, and wants someone else to pay for them (while refusing to risk their own necks to attain it). Perhaps this is the consequence of the lack of hardship and privation, who knows? People are certainly softer than they have ever been before.

You basically took everything out of my head and transferred it into this post.

[hateraid]

That's the wrong view of romantic relationship though. If the reason people get together is to fulfill their own needs then it's not a real relationship. There should be a mutual feeling of caring for the other person and having his/her happiness becoming your own. Basically this person, not yourself, becomes your purpose and vice versa.

Think of it like the relationship between a loving mother and son. A mother really want nothing out of her son but his happiness, and will go to great sacrifice to ensure that. Will she ever "drop" her son if she finds a better opportunity for herself? Or if her son becomes a huge burden? Her son might, but not her.

I once thought it's unrealistic, but then I realized it's simply a commitment.

Sorry but I'm leaning to agreeing with Joe more.
To contradict bolded, there is more potential now more than ever for this scenario to happen. Even if not, a mom would be more inclined to leave the father and take the child if it meant preserving her happiness over the well being of her children. Despite the bonds the family has created and the support systems in place and if he is a good father, if she is unhappy, yet has potential to fix her relationship, I guarantee in most cases she will leave her relationship, because it will take less work than to fix it

[Akrazotile]

Humans are simply creatures of habit and circumstance. There are very rare exceptions.

It is equally easy/hard to be a CEO and to be a sanitation worker. People are not inherently looking for the low risk, low reward lifestyle.

They are simply being "human" and protecting their basic knowledge of how to survive. In our minds, failing in the modern world is equal to failing at hunting in caveman days = death. Though that is not the true reality of our world, our fear of failure/unknown is what got us to this point as civilization. The ability to survive was the predominant theme of human history up until the last 100 or so years.

You had to be careful and prepare for worse days - relative safety, shelter, food, water, etc were not all givens like we have today.


Yeah, there is a school of thought that says the entire progress of humanity is the result of the exceptional ability of a very select few individuals over time. Everyone else is basically a herd of would-be neanderthals getting carried along by a generational talent here and there and getting credit for being a part of it, a la threepeat Kobe with Shaq. :confusedshrug:

[Dresta]

You basically took everything out of my head and transferred it into this post.
you welcome brah - tis an important topic, glad someone else cares about it :cheers:

[ace23]

Not me.

The rap game >

[32jazz]

By this theory it means nobody should try. So it's a bad example. That and the fact the Beiber's of the world struck a lottery in the industry. They're incredibly lucky. There are billions of baby faces with his musical talent that didn't catch the same break.
Also do apply this to my example of marriage?

Link to where I said 'nobody should try?".

I admire the 'high risk' people more than than few others ,but I feel 'mediocre' people should be respected as well.

I was only saying at some point that a person must accept his/her lot in life . Some are straddling a fine line between immense success or just being a 'bum'.


Like my musician friend who crashes out on the sofa of his 'mediocre' friends. Or lives with his 'mediocre' parents & in laws in their 'mediocre' houses with their 'mediocre' 401ks.


You are in agreement with Prince & I that "everybody can't be on top' when you speak of the millions who fail in music. I don't criticize the ambition just the time it takes you to accept that those ambitions should be tempered with a bit a common sense/reality eventually.


A mediocre person like me would support my children forever with any dreams /goals of theirs without judging them ,but everyone doesn't have that type support/understanding.

[iamgine]

Sorry but I'm leaning to agreeing with Joe more.
To contradict bolded, there is more potential now more than ever for this scenario to happen. Even if not, a mom would be more inclined to leave the father and take the child if it meant preserving her happiness over the well being of her children. Despite the bonds the family has created and the support systems in place and if he is a good father, if she is unhappy, yet has potential to fix her relationship, I guarantee in most cases she will leave her relationship, because it will take less work than to fix it
Of course that's what's happening nowadays because the plenty of people has the wrong view of romantic relationship, as I explained.