First, the good news. I had my first in-person interview for a position yesterday (after a phone interview before Christmas), and now have another interview scheduled for Friday. This is apparently the last step, so wish me luck!
I have been alternating between reviewing some of my course material (particularly for the CISSP, as well as some Linux admin) and watching anime/reading manga and finally decided to watch a bit more of My Hero Academia. I had watched the first couple of episodes a while back, since it's a fairly popular anime and seemed suited to my tastes, but I found the main character a bit too annoying at the time.
That is, I know stories like this are all about the development of the main character and they can't start out too awesome, but I decided not to keep watching it at that time.
Now that I've come back to it, well, it's got some interesting themes. (And really, isn't it fascinating how different stories can explore entirely different themes, even when there are superficial similarities? One Punch Man and My Hero Academia have some similarities in that there are superheroes and some interesting takes on what a superhero culture is like... especially as popularity and showmanship can play a greater role than power or morally 'good' behavior in making a superhero... but they also have completely different underlying themes.) I also found some of the more poignant bits the way that the main character knows something nobody else does about his idol *spoiler* His idol - All Might - had been severely injured in a previous fight and can only use his powers for a limited time. In one particular fight scene, all the protagonist's classmates were thrilled and relieved when All Might came to defeat the bad guys, and only the protagonist knew that the last minutes of the confrontation were probably pure bluff on All Might's part. It added a new dynamic to the entire fight scene. *end spoiler*
Anyways. The class of wannabe superheroes are competing (as so many shounen manga like to do), and as usual their all driven in various ways. But it makes me think...
Well, part of the point of the last few competitions was to show how tenacious these kids have to be if they want to make it big. Striving even when all hope seems lost, giving it their all. And on the one hand, it's admirable. They really grow into amazing characters through their struggles. At the same time, only one person is actually going to be the 'winner', and in some ways it seems ridiculous how unwilling some of the characters are to accept second or third.
Like, you showed some amazing skills and worked your hardest, any of the recruiters watching could see you'd be pretty good at what you want to do, and in life there's pretty much always someone stronger and better. You'll win some, you'll lose some, and you'll learn and grow along the way, and that's pretty much life. (Oh, and then you reach peak performance, only to start aging and weakening along the way. So even if you grow to be amazingly strong, eventually you'll lose to someone younger... or, perhaps, be lucky enough to die undefeated of old age.) Someone once said that in writing, good characters are obsessed. They will go to unrealistic lengths to achieve a goal. Like Orpheus, grieving the loss of a loved one and willing to brave the underworld to recover her. Everyone grieves, everyone loses loved ones, and shouldn't we want to bring them back if there was any way possible? And yet... isn't it also, well... there are so many (completely fictional!) stories of people doing something risky or unethical in order to bring a loved one back to life, and in some ways it's not normal or healthy. Understandable, but not really a good sign.
But I digress. Striving to succeed is good, developing yourself to your full potential is good, and competition can help spur people to take that extra step... but it can also make things very unpleasant when you (inevitably) face failure. If you want to waste a large portion of it feeling angry and resentful over every loss, that sort of seems like an unpleasant way to spend your life... but it can produce great results, so who am I to judge?
It makes me think about the real world, though. About how driven people are to succeed. About what pushes people to become pro-baseball players, or CEOs, or President of the US. It reminds me of articles I've read, about how so many rich people see the world as a competition that they have to win.
I'm not so sure they're really happy, you know. Seeing the world like that. Oh, sure, it's nice to have financial security. I am definitely envious of that (especially in my current state of uncertainty). But people take for granted what they have, they get used to it. Don't think about it. And from what I've seen too many people who are well off and financially secure get caught up in comparing themselves to others, and realizing that they're not at the top. It's the whole 'keeping up with the Joneses' thing, who cares if they're making six figures when they can see and interact with people making a lot more than that?
In some ways, it also makes me... sad. As they say, it's about the journey and not the destination... and people can be driven to such a degree that they miss out entirely on the journey. Like the classic trope of a businessman too busy to spend time with his son, or having his wife walk out on him because he's never home. (And the trope is almost inevitably about a man.)
These (completely fictional kids) are driven, and at this point in their development it's kind of a good thing. They're building bonds and making memories and whatnot. But there may come a time when it's not. Or rather, if they were real kids rather than fictional, they would. This particular show is pointing out some of what it takes to be number one, showing how during the competition even your friends may not be your allies. How drive and tenacity can make all the difference between mediocrity and being in the top tier.
But... is that necessarily a good thing?
I titled this 'driven vs. called', but I haven't really touched on that yet. It goes back to something an aunt of mine said, years ago, that I like to think is an important distinction. I acknowledge that to be really good at something you have to put in the time and effort. And even something you thoroughly enjoy will sometimes require doing 'work' that you don't.
However...
I also think there's a difference between being passionate about something in a positive way (i.e. 'called', because if you are really passionate about whatever-it-is, you enjoy it so much that you think about it in your free time, are driven to master the skills needed, and the push to perform comes almost natural as you do something you love) vs. being motivated in a negative way, whether it's fear of being a failure or fear that you're only loved so long as you're a winner, or whatever other negative emotion pushes you to perform. (i.e. 'driven' like a sheep being herded with painful nips by a cattle dog. Maybe you don't really want to go in that direction, maybe you'd be happier elsewhere, but those damn nips are so painful that you're going to run as hard and fast as you can.)
I also wonder, sometimes, how many people are competing in areas that aren't truly their passion simply because of such drives. You know... like power, fame, and fortune. A lot of people want to feel like they have some say over their world. Want to wield power and influence.
And history consistently shows that any time such things come into play people inevitably start gaming the system to make sure they are the ones on top. I wonder how much of the rise and fall of nations is tied to that? It's all too predictable, and I keep wondering why it's so hard to see in real time. You know... like how did the French aristocrats not see the French revolution coming? Why do those who originally seemed to rise meritocratically inevitably turn into a corrupt and decadent class? It's not just the French aristocrats. There were also the Janissaries and Mamluks, and plenty more.
It's like... something about establishing a path to power, fame, and fortune draws people who destroy the very things that made it a success in the first place. And I think some of that is because the people coming are 'driven', not called by a passion for... I dunno... good governance, but driven by their desire for power, fame, and/or fortune.
And so they care more about winning than they do about actually doing the job they're supposed to.
Hmmm. Well, this wandered in an odd little direction and I don't really have any hard conclusions about the things I've pondered here, but that's probably enough for now.
I have been alternating between reviewing some of my course material (particularly for the CISSP, as well as some Linux admin) and watching anime/reading manga and finally decided to watch a bit more of My Hero Academia. I had watched the first couple of episodes a while back, since it's a fairly popular anime and seemed suited to my tastes, but I found the main character a bit too annoying at the time.
That is, I know stories like this are all about the development of the main character and they can't start out too awesome, but I decided not to keep watching it at that time.
Now that I've come back to it, well, it's got some interesting themes. (And really, isn't it fascinating how different stories can explore entirely different themes, even when there are superficial similarities? One Punch Man and My Hero Academia have some similarities in that there are superheroes and some interesting takes on what a superhero culture is like... especially as popularity and showmanship can play a greater role than power or morally 'good' behavior in making a superhero... but they also have completely different underlying themes.) I also found some of the more poignant bits the way that the main character knows something nobody else does about his idol *spoiler* His idol - All Might - had been severely injured in a previous fight and can only use his powers for a limited time. In one particular fight scene, all the protagonist's classmates were thrilled and relieved when All Might came to defeat the bad guys, and only the protagonist knew that the last minutes of the confrontation were probably pure bluff on All Might's part. It added a new dynamic to the entire fight scene. *end spoiler*
Anyways. The class of wannabe superheroes are competing (as so many shounen manga like to do), and as usual their all driven in various ways. But it makes me think...
Well, part of the point of the last few competitions was to show how tenacious these kids have to be if they want to make it big. Striving even when all hope seems lost, giving it their all. And on the one hand, it's admirable. They really grow into amazing characters through their struggles. At the same time, only one person is actually going to be the 'winner', and in some ways it seems ridiculous how unwilling some of the characters are to accept second or third.
Like, you showed some amazing skills and worked your hardest, any of the recruiters watching could see you'd be pretty good at what you want to do, and in life there's pretty much always someone stronger and better. You'll win some, you'll lose some, and you'll learn and grow along the way, and that's pretty much life. (Oh, and then you reach peak performance, only to start aging and weakening along the way. So even if you grow to be amazingly strong, eventually you'll lose to someone younger... or, perhaps, be lucky enough to die undefeated of old age.) Someone once said that in writing, good characters are obsessed. They will go to unrealistic lengths to achieve a goal. Like Orpheus, grieving the loss of a loved one and willing to brave the underworld to recover her. Everyone grieves, everyone loses loved ones, and shouldn't we want to bring them back if there was any way possible? And yet... isn't it also, well... there are so many (completely fictional!) stories of people doing something risky or unethical in order to bring a loved one back to life, and in some ways it's not normal or healthy. Understandable, but not really a good sign.
But I digress. Striving to succeed is good, developing yourself to your full potential is good, and competition can help spur people to take that extra step... but it can also make things very unpleasant when you (inevitably) face failure. If you want to waste a large portion of it feeling angry and resentful over every loss, that sort of seems like an unpleasant way to spend your life... but it can produce great results, so who am I to judge?
It makes me think about the real world, though. About how driven people are to succeed. About what pushes people to become pro-baseball players, or CEOs, or President of the US. It reminds me of articles I've read, about how so many rich people see the world as a competition that they have to win.
I'm not so sure they're really happy, you know. Seeing the world like that. Oh, sure, it's nice to have financial security. I am definitely envious of that (especially in my current state of uncertainty). But people take for granted what they have, they get used to it. Don't think about it. And from what I've seen too many people who are well off and financially secure get caught up in comparing themselves to others, and realizing that they're not at the top. It's the whole 'keeping up with the Joneses' thing, who cares if they're making six figures when they can see and interact with people making a lot more than that?
In some ways, it also makes me... sad. As they say, it's about the journey and not the destination... and people can be driven to such a degree that they miss out entirely on the journey. Like the classic trope of a businessman too busy to spend time with his son, or having his wife walk out on him because he's never home. (And the trope is almost inevitably about a man.)
These (completely fictional kids) are driven, and at this point in their development it's kind of a good thing. They're building bonds and making memories and whatnot. But there may come a time when it's not. Or rather, if they were real kids rather than fictional, they would. This particular show is pointing out some of what it takes to be number one, showing how during the competition even your friends may not be your allies. How drive and tenacity can make all the difference between mediocrity and being in the top tier.
But... is that necessarily a good thing?
I titled this 'driven vs. called', but I haven't really touched on that yet. It goes back to something an aunt of mine said, years ago, that I like to think is an important distinction. I acknowledge that to be really good at something you have to put in the time and effort. And even something you thoroughly enjoy will sometimes require doing 'work' that you don't.
However...
I also think there's a difference between being passionate about something in a positive way (i.e. 'called', because if you are really passionate about whatever-it-is, you enjoy it so much that you think about it in your free time, are driven to master the skills needed, and the push to perform comes almost natural as you do something you love) vs. being motivated in a negative way, whether it's fear of being a failure or fear that you're only loved so long as you're a winner, or whatever other negative emotion pushes you to perform. (i.e. 'driven' like a sheep being herded with painful nips by a cattle dog. Maybe you don't really want to go in that direction, maybe you'd be happier elsewhere, but those damn nips are so painful that you're going to run as hard and fast as you can.)
I also wonder, sometimes, how many people are competing in areas that aren't truly their passion simply because of such drives. You know... like power, fame, and fortune. A lot of people want to feel like they have some say over their world. Want to wield power and influence.
And history consistently shows that any time such things come into play people inevitably start gaming the system to make sure they are the ones on top. I wonder how much of the rise and fall of nations is tied to that? It's all too predictable, and I keep wondering why it's so hard to see in real time. You know... like how did the French aristocrats not see the French revolution coming? Why do those who originally seemed to rise meritocratically inevitably turn into a corrupt and decadent class? It's not just the French aristocrats. There were also the Janissaries and Mamluks, and plenty more.
It's like... something about establishing a path to power, fame, and fortune draws people who destroy the very things that made it a success in the first place. And I think some of that is because the people coming are 'driven', not called by a passion for... I dunno... good governance, but driven by their desire for power, fame, and/or fortune.
And so they care more about winning than they do about actually doing the job they're supposed to.
Hmmm. Well, this wandered in an odd little direction and I don't really have any hard conclusions about the things I've pondered here, but that's probably enough for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment