Then don't make a list - just do things as the opportunities present themselves.
Throw yourself in, do it, move on to something else.
And I would save you, Saiyyadati.I would die making the list
(I'm feeling gallant today).
Too much choice undermines happiness
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Throw yourself in, do it, move on to something else.
(I'm feeling gallant today).
To answer the initial question by S.A.M. there are no “unreasonable expectations,” indecision is in itself a decision not to act, and there is a silent fear associated with every decision, even if it’s only a fear of being disappointed between the choice of two different new flavors of ice cream to buy, so accept it.
Look at Abe Lincoln, a man who, notwithstanding legend, was always ambitious to be something better than an uneducated backwoods man. He tried storekeeping, and failed. The first time he ran for public office he failed. He tried twice to be elected a US senator, and failed both times. (If they had so many failures behind them I believe that most of the people who have offered opinions here would have quit trying to get elected to anything.)
He walked out on Mary Todd the first time they were to be married, maybe he just needed more time to thing, since he married her later. (And by most objective accounts, it was a good marriage.) His life was filled with indecision, and when he made a decision he usually failed. (How many generals did he appoint to head the Army of the Potomac before selecting Grant?) But it didn’t stop him from trying to reach those expectations everyone thought were unreasonable. Perhaps Lincoln took to heart the words of a 19th century contemporary, Robert Browning, who wrote: “If a man’s reach does not exceed his grasp then what’s a heaven for?”
My advice, enjoy decisions you have to make, look upon each one as a challenge, don’t be afraid to fail if they don’t come out as you expected, and don’t be afraid to try again.
Look at Abe Lincoln, a man who, notwithstanding legend, was always ambitious to be something better than an uneducated backwoods man. He tried storekeeping, and failed. The first time he ran for public office he failed. He tried twice to be elected a US senator, and failed both times. (If they had so many failures behind them I believe that most of the people who have offered opinions here would have quit trying to get elected to anything.)
He walked out on Mary Todd the first time they were to be married, maybe he just needed more time to thing, since he married her later. (And by most objective accounts, it was a good marriage.) His life was filled with indecision, and when he made a decision he usually failed. (How many generals did he appoint to head the Army of the Potomac before selecting Grant?) But it didn’t stop him from trying to reach those expectations everyone thought were unreasonable. Perhaps Lincoln took to heart the words of a 19th century contemporary, Robert Browning, who wrote: “If a man’s reach does not exceed his grasp then what’s a heaven for?”
My advice, enjoy decisions you have to make, look upon each one as a challenge, don’t be afraid to fail if they don’t come out as you expected, and don’t be afraid to try again.
How do you work that out?
Why should there be a fear associated with a decision?
If I decide to learn a new subject, for example, where is the fear?
Thats nice, I like that. I also like, "I may not be perfect, but parts of me are excellent!"
I fully agree about the retrospective analysis thing, it diminishes the ability to enjoy and commit to the decisions you make. If only... is the worst sentiment one can indulge in.
Hip Hop Skeptic
Registered Member
Every time people throw any kind of "too much" question at me, it is difficult for me to answer.
Because you have to take that part into account "TOO much".
By definition if there's too much of something then there is more than enough of that thing. And too much means there is so much more that it creates a problem.
So the answer to the question must be yes too much choice is bad because there is too much of it.
If many choices undermine happiness would be a different argument all together.
I actually voted "NO" but I was wrong I wish I could take back my vote.
Because you have to take that part into account "TOO much".
By definition if there's too much of something then there is more than enough of that thing. And too much means there is so much more that it creates a problem.
So the answer to the question must be yes too much choice is bad because there is too much of it.
If many choices undermine happiness would be a different argument all together.
I actually voted "NO" but I was wrong I wish I could take back my vote.
Hip Hop Skeptic
Registered Member
Ha ha thanks.
Some of us like to have choices, please leave us alone or we will make you unhappy.
S.A.M. said:
It's a matter of classification. "One, two, three, many," suffices for much of our lives, but since we can theoretically count to the quadrillions, we figure to make as many classifications as we can imagine. On the one hand, people think in terms of Manichean dualisms: good/evil, normal/deviant, efficient/inefficient, utilitarian/aesthetic, man/woman, God/Devil, &c. ad nauseam. To the other, though, we wallow to our hearts' delights in minutiae. Keeping up with the Joneses, splitting hairs in noble defense of our half of the dualism, blah-yadda-whatnot.
The problem of too much choice is the idea of classifications. At some point, someone has too much "gear". To the other, they crave more stuff they haven't the time to use because instead of looking at "recreation" or "entertainment", they see pool table, jukebox, home theater system, X-Box, Wii, PC, mobile phone, digital cable television, mountain bike, iPod, digital camera, camping gear, you name it.
I read a thousand pages last week before my brain gave over on Thursday. I'd forgotten how simply some of my best-loved moments come with the raising of the birds in the early morning and the depths of midnight smothered in vivid, dreamlike echoes. I didn't find it with the PS2, the iMac, the PC, the DVD player .... But in addition to its other attributes, such reading also fills a very general category: entertainment and recreation.
The question of why we choose is as important as the more fundamentally obvious question of what we choose. The question of why helps outline the nature of how we choose.
If the empowerment of choice brings unhappiness, one must consider why and how one chooses what they choose, both in the choices presented and the outcomes thereof.
Frittering one's fundamental humanity on insubstantial tokens of any given moment can be a frustrating use of inherent capabilities. This is why the rich and spoiled are so annoying. They're frustrated at themselves, and don't know how to be. They must necessarily pretend that their self-loathing is a different process than that of the poor. Such common humanity abhors .... Er, sorry.
How does one arrive at the classification of each choice? Therein lies the key to understanding the unhappiness freedom brings.
Hip Hop Skeptic
Registered Member
2 identical bowls of food are placed in front of a dog. Same amount of food, same smell, same everything.
The dog is neither left nor right eye dominant. There are no outside factors like wind blowing the bowl on the right's scent at the dog more.
The 2 bowls, the one on the left and the one on the right are completely identical.
The dog, in theory (or am I just making this up?), cannot choose one bowl of food over the other. So it will starve to death.
Choice has something to do with survival and stuff in humans too, I think.
This is all open for debate.
The dog is neither left nor right eye dominant. There are no outside factors like wind blowing the bowl on the right's scent at the dog more.
The 2 bowls, the one on the left and the one on the right are completely identical.
The dog, in theory (or am I just making this up?), cannot choose one bowl of food over the other. So it will starve to death.
Choice has something to do with survival and stuff in humans too, I think.
This is all open for debate.
Hip Hop Skeptic
Registered Member
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Absent a severe mental defect, animals (including humans) do not get into logical loops where they "have to" select "the best" option or refuse to act at all. Even if the dog digs into one bowl, selected arbitrarily, and finds that it doesn't taste as good as it smelled (and hence the other bowl might have been a better choice), the dog will continue to eat so long as the food meets certain minimum standards.
In reality, my dogs would definitely sniff one bowl (selected at random) then go and sniff the other. In theory they would therefore not be equidistant form both bowls, one would be closer. But guess what? From what I have seen they might well walk over to the identical bowl that's further away. It might be that they want a second sniff, and then eat from that one, but having two dogs I have seen the agony of bowl selection many times.
Two bowls is not too much choice, however, we are talking about human beings. At least I was.
Didn't see a damned thing in the orginal post about this being only about humans. Make your posts more clear in the future.
Or else just stick to jabbing, prodding and poking at others with your sharpened sticks.
Baron Max
:bawl: :bawl: :bawl:
Prod, jab, poke .....jab, prod, poke, .....repeat, then sharpen stick so you can jab, poke, and prod more people to cause more anger and pain. Sam's posting methodology.
Baron Max
You don't stand for BS either Baron, so why complain if I won't?