Harriet Richardson Ames is my latest and maybe only hero. She died a few days ago, aged 100. A day before, she had accomplished her dream: she got her degree as an NH teacher.
The over-achievers who knew precisely what they wanted to become since they were 6, laughed at such news. Some admired her tenacity. Others pitied her. What was the purpose of getting a degree at 100? Self-accomplishment and personal satisfaction, obviously. Yes, but what was the pragmatic utility of it? We do eventually things as we need to see through a practical finality. The reward of a long or short term effort. We work a whole month, we get the pay check. We study, we get a degree. We get a degree, we get a better job. We write, we get recognition. We sing, we get fame. We do a good deed, we get helper's high. We mate, we get an orgasm. We work on a practical reward system. Why did Harriet want her degree a day before she died? Sure, her message is simple: follow your dream, no matter what. Aim as high as you want, and go for it.
Aiming very high is not always recommendable. Your skills and potential might not help your, at times, unrealistic desire to get where you dream of. Ok, what is the solution then? Have realistic expectations. Harriet's expectation was not realistic yet she had a real stake setting. And went for it.
If things that we do are eventually for self- accomplishment it should not be an embarrassment if we go to school at 50. Or 100. Yet, it is.
Why are we then striving to get a pile of diplomas since we are teens? Because we want to be successful. What is success, then? A friend of mine made me re-consider what I thought of success. I thought being successful was to make an orchid re-bloom, be able to spend time with my daughter in between joggling a full-time job, mono-parental family and going to university again to get a second degree.
My friend added a new component to my modest, yet heartwarming list: peer recognition. Success is also a level of status in society and from where he was standing, it was not enough not be a failure to be considered successful. Success means also recognition, creation, and reaching a goal. What was my goal? Hold on, I knew the answer to this one. My goal is, to, ahem, hold on, and let me think a bit. Yes, my goal is to live. Bingo. Did I pass?
Oh well, I got newsflash for you. Just living is not exactly successful. Sure if you are a rabbit chased by a hawk, surviving is being considered a successful action. But this is not the case. I am no rabbit. I have to live creatively. And to get collegial appreciation.
Assume I create but I have no peer recognition, would this make me less successful? Then Vincent Van Gogh was a failure. Actually, he was. In fact, he did not sell a single painting during his lifetime.
Education certainly is not the ultimate scale to measure success, otherwise there would not be so many unemployed highly educated people or successful college drop-outs. Woody Allen, Bill Gates, John Glenn (the first man to orbit the earth), Michael Dell (yes, the same Dell like the laptop am typing right now) are all people without degrees.
On the other hand, Hollywood is the anti-example that education insures success. Let alone how success is defined these days (a sad and odd combo of social status, financial security, level of education, admiration, notoriety, goal achieving, PhDs collecting etc), there are a few common traits that successful people had in common: at a certain point, they did not care what others told them; they desired something very much and went for it regardless of their age; they did not consider peer recognition as a mandatory condition. And most of the times, they had unrealistic expectations. If Tversky and Kahneman were right, we prefer avoiding losses to making gains. So, dream on, eyes wide-open and go for it. What do you have to lose?
No comments:
Post a Comment