Emily Rapp spoke to me as a Dad and as a human being like few have ever done. I strongly recommend this life-affirming article from this courageous and beautiful mother.
A few years ago some ‘happiness’ researchers contended that parents were actually less happy than couples without children because of the sorrows and headaches accompanied by raising children. I remember thinking that is the most ridiculous and superficial analysis I’ve ever read. Of course there are challenges. But they underline the exponential rewards.
Now comes a new analysis about what truly constitutes happiness in a well-rounded way. It debunks the equation of temporary moods or even positive attitudes with ‘happiness." These are of course interrelated, but so is meaning, a sense of accomplishment, engagement, etc.
The attached article shares some of the new thinking on measuring happiness. Some of these insights reminded me of the theme of the commencement speech I gave at Trinity University a couple weeks ago.
It is an interesting question posed by Wall Street Journal’s Matt Ridley: what genes contribute to aggressive and violent behavior, and how could one hypothetically find the answers by looking at Osama’s brain? In this article, Ridley consults with psychologist Prof. Baron-Cohen who lists the various genes that may aggregate to produce either violent or empathetic behavior. If morality is predetermined by our genes, there are severe moral implications attached.
Spotted by Daniel Lubetzky, redacted by Adeena Schlussel
In a recent New York Times Article, David Brooks discusses two opposing sides of the evolutionary debate: does selfish, survival of the fittest tactics propel individuals towards success as commonly perceived? Or, on the other hand, do morality, kindness and cooperation play a role in reaching the top? Brooks explores work of various professors, concluding that no matter who is right, if cooperation and morality are innate to our behavior, ethics and emotion are inseparable from understanding our daily lives.
Spotted by Daniel Lubetzky, redacted by Adeena Schlussel
Susan Colin Marks is one of those rare human beings whose presence in ANY context invariably enriches the experience of ALL involved. Stunned at seeing how she always managed to have a positive attitude, even vis a vis people that others would find unpalatable to interact with, I asked her how she handled situations where an ordinary mortal would consider a counterpart to be annoying, self-righteous, or even unjust and inhumane. She shared that her secret is to build a reservoir of compassion, and that whenever I found myself judging others for being too self-centered, or unjust to others, I would need to reach into that reservoir and try to understand that they may be behaving that way out of insecurity, or other limitations in the human spirit that probably made them who they are, and reduced their happiness. I should feel for them. At the beginning I semi-dismissed this as New Age California talk. But I tried it when I felt negative reactions towards others and it worked marvels.
Now, living life the way Susan does is not easy. It will take a ton of work to get even remotely close, and to even hope this mindset becomes instinctual. But to the extent you can incorporate this thinking tool into your internal kit, it definitely can make you happier and more effective.
I do still wonder if injustice should always merit compassion. Is an outright lie or evil behavior worthy of it? Should your compassion help you reach out to those people? Or should you channel that indignation to energize your work and fight that injustice? Since I was a kid, and living in the shadow and the memories of the Holocaust that my Dad went through, I find that when I notice someone be unfair to another, it inspires my action to help. But also I have found that it repeatedly angers me and saddens me, sometimes to the point of being emotionally draining beyond belief. Do you accept those feelings and welcome them as a sign of your moral compass? Or are they a reflection of imperfection and judgmentality?
My assumption is that, sadly, there are at least some people who are so devoid of a human soul that they may not merit “compassion” as it will delude us into thinking that they can be negotiated with and they can be very dangerous to the world. People like Hitler or Ahmadinejad. They need to be contained, confronted, and opposed with all moral fiber and all necessary efforts. I don’t personally subscribe to pacifism because my Dad would not have been alive if the Nazis had not been fought. Sadly, the use of force in some cases is tragically unavoidable.
But those people are probably an exceptional rarity. Most human beings will go their entire lives without crossing paths with people that truly do not merit compassion. In the overwhelming majority of cases, compassion towards people you don’t like or appreciate can probably make you a more effective leader, and a happier and more positive person.
And I assume Susan would probably find compassion for all, even for those I dismiss as beyond the pale. What is your answer?
This quote was shared by Debbie Roos at the Trinity University 20th year reunion:
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away – Hilary Cooper
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Mohandas Gandhi
by Adeena Schlussel on behalf of Daniel Lubetzky
In a New York Times article a couple of years ago, Steven Pinker discussed morality and specifically, when it comes to a head with culture, preferences and evolving standards. Pinker’s conclusion makes an important point that an adversary’s opinion may seem completely immoral, when in fact it is “in the throes of a moral mind-set that appears to them to be every bit as mandatory and universal as ours does to us.” Whether morality should be an immutable and universal code, or if it should be more subjective and evolve with the ages, it is crucial to remember that our personal inclinations should never “get in the way of doing the right thing.”
For years, Forbes has published a list of billionaires that reflects the cult of money we live in. We lionize wealth. Why? Wealth accumulation is only a means to an end. What are you going to do with that money should matter to society much more. Why is it that so many people forget that? At least partly it’s because our society glorifies financial success, and ranking it is relatively easier as you are dealing with a very easy measure: money accumulated.
It would be far more interesting, though, if a publication or organization measured and praised the social impact of the greatest contributors to civilization. For example, Mohammad Yunus from Grameen Bank, who is nowhere to be seen on the Forbes list, would rank quite high because of the enormous impact he has had on society. Bill Gates would too, given how much of his wealth he has given out and in such methodic ways to try to impact society.
My friend Martin Varsavsky forwarded me a list published by BusinessWeek that is a useful start – ranking the most generous philanthropists within the Forbes 400 list.
What we need now is to take it to the next level, asking a trusted third party to develop a way to take donations into contribution as the BusinessWeek list does, but to not stop there. To add a measurement for the way the money is given out, whether there is a social innovation or model that helps advance society in the process. For example, the Skoll Foundation is among those responsible for supporting social entrepreneurship and making it “cool.” So it’s not just the enormous amount it has invested (donated) into the space, but also the way it has gone about doing it. That counts more than just writing a check, assuming the process and the platform are well thought out and innovative. And even if someone doesn’t donate money, but they create models to benefit humanity, whether through better health systems like Paul Farmer, or through the many innovations that social entrepreneurs from India and South East Asia (including several impressive ones selected by the Schwab Foundation) have introduced to truly impact their countries.
Celebrities also have a currency – fame, and the power to use it effectively. So here again, we could turn blind worship of celebrities into appreciation for those that, rather than paying the dues their publicist asked them to, sincerely engage in ways that are sustained and impactful. George Clooney comes to mind, but there are dozens others who truly dedicate themselves to make this a better world.
If Fast-Company Magazine or TIME Magazine could create a formula that is sufficiently consistent, transparent, and simple while robust, it could become the basis for others to start rallying around and quoting and praising those truly worthy of adulation.
People that truly want to change the world do not do it for the sake of a popularity contest. Changing the world is not easy, so if you just want to be popular in today’s society there are shortcuts to think you can get there. So this list is not intended to impact those people. For that there is education – helping people find purpose in their lives.
But for our society as a whole, which is so obsessed with Hollywood celebrities, political power, and financial wealth, a credible list that focused peoples’ attention on the contributions people are making to society could help start changing the discourse.
And to make this platform truly inspiring and accessible to high school students and not just people already in a position of influence, a supplemental list could be created that would track the CREATIVITY AND MAGNIFICATIONAL IMPACT of just one simple action or relatively modest behavioral change within every person’s reach. The power of the internet can be the great equalizer. With Do The KIND Thing, the KIND Movement is trying to inspire unexpected acts of kindness that are the most KINDTASTIC – truly transformative and impactful. Ideally we can start putting a spotlight on how “the average citizen” can make a far-greater-than-average contribution to their community. It would be great if society could find effective platforms to praise those who step out of their zones of comfort to make others a bit better off, to show how a 15-year old can change the world, one idea at a time.