Semantics of Success
July 22nd, 2009 by snakelegI remember, not so long ago, the Chung Ling boys had a gathering in one of the hall canteens. There sat a very senior Chung Ling boy, brimming with success and achievements. That time, he was the only one who showed up and we were thankful that he even came as we deemed this modest place unfit for him. Like many uncles, he had many stories to tell and advices to give. One of the advices that stuck with me most clearly was the one about success. He said that, in the rat race, there is only one bungalow and one Ferrari. We must all try to overtake each other to reach the finish line and take the rewards. Since there is only one reward, the rest will be left with zilch. He also added that, only the selfish and ruthless could become the winner. Should you decide to express kindness and help others, you should do so only after reaching the finish line. What he meant was that it is a winner-takes-all society out there. It’s a dog eat dog world. It’s better to eat the other dogs to survive than being a dead dog. Being so eloquent and convincing in his speech, many resonated to his advice. Frankly, so did I. However, some recent changes of view have led me further and further away from agreement with his advice.
To him, success is a race. There is only one finish line and only one winner at a time. Friends are rivals competing for the same reward and thus should be entrusted as far as a rival. We’re all in the “survivors” television show and one by one we got voted off the island. I don’t mean to say he was wrong. In fact, he painted a picture so real that I find it tragic. “Survivors” wouldn’t be called a reality show if it wasn’t simulating one. He saw and understood the system which the majority of the society adheres to, and he played the game. He played it well, so he came out on top. This game is played very often especially in the animal kingdom, so that the fittest survives. However, evolution has molded a brain for us capable of comprehending that we aren’t just animals. We don’t need to play by the rules. We create our own rules. Humans are “the lord of this world” isn’t because only the fittest survives. It’s because even the less fit is helped to survive. Let’s see how these two different rules climb the evolutionary mountain.
For the first rule, everybody is racing upwards the snow-capped mountain against each other. Everyone carries his own tent, pick axe, rope, matches, food and water supply, torchlight, blanket and navigation guide. Since they hike separately, they’ll have to do everything individually. They’re extremely motivated as the “winner” gets to claim the glory of conquering the mountain as his own. As a result, many will fall out due to fatigue and disappointment as they notice the hurdle is much larger than what they can handle. If a group of climbers decide to band together instead, it changes everything. Now, only one guy needs to carry a moderately larger tent where everyone can sleep in. Cuddling together at night also generates additional warmth which everyone can share. Not so many torch lights are needed as everyone can see the illuminated area. If everyone is roped together, an individual who accidentally fell off a cliff would have his life spared and continue to contribute to the group. Should anyone feel that he can’t go on, the high spirited will provoke the will to persevere. If they were threatened by wild animals, the whole group can just grab their pick axes and torches and make dinner out of it. With that, the whole group will reach the apex share success. This is just one of the many analogies where grouping together isn’t an option, it is a requirement. The question is, why are we straying further away from this group behavior when it comes to achievement and success? Why is it such a utopia that success can be shared?
This is why I chose the mountain climbing over the rat race analogy. If you can get up that mountain by your own, you gain achievement. If you can get up there as a group, you gain achievement and fulfillment, which is what the meaning of life is all about. Tony Robbins once said that success is a science, but fulfillment is an art. We all have the need to grow and feel useful, by contributing to someone else’s life. Perhaps this need is hard-wired into our system, as humans have been living the nomadic life for millions of years. To survive, we need tribes and families. When one is sick or injured, food is provided to him. When one is aged and unable to eat, food is chewed into a cud and provided to him. When one died, the others buried him and mourned the loss. The sedentary lifestyle merely began about ten thousand years ago. By then, aristocrats worked the serfs and farmers to the maximum, but they were still dependent on each other. The prominent rise of individualism is even more recent. The supply chain grew so long that we thought our reliance on each other has been reduced to a bare minimum. Several millennia ago, we need others to survive literally; now, we think that we need others just to survive psychologically. Armed with this egocentric perception, we begin to think that we can do anything on our own.
On the more practical side of things, I like John Wooden’s definition of success best. He said that we shouldn’t compare success with others as each of us should have different yardsticks. Success is about making the best out of what’s available for us. No one is born equal or similar, so we should set our own standards of success. However, the truth is that not many seem to be doing that. We are all more or less influenced by what people achieved and anchor our standards to them. Most of us set our standards too high (as it is seen as an ambitious trait), neglecting the more important things in our lives, such as love, happiness and connectedness. It’s saddening we can no longer enjoy the growth and fulfillment that we are supposed to. All is not lost though, we just need to remember that when measuring success, we need only to look into ourselves and reflect, instead of looking up towards the others. Successful personalities that we encounter should merely be taken as our inspiration, not our target.