Where am I heading?

Basically, especially looking from an onlooker's perspective at my life, things aren't going on wrong.

Health-wise, with the exception of the lumbar spine which I will have be careful with until the end of my days, with depression kept at bay, there is nothing more to worry. Should a mishap strike me, money is put aside to ensure superior medical care.

Work-wise, eight months into the path a few years ago I would shun, not only do I not regret it, but apparently I get ahead. My workmates, especially my team and my boss are glad they work with me. At times it is tough, at times I am sick of it, yet those moments don't change my overall positive perception.

My parents are getting older, with mum now 76, dad just turned 77. They carry on, yet their physical and mental fitness has been on decline over the last years. I face what almost everybody faces, maybe except for being totally alone with it. They are my only family, I have no bonds with other relatives and frankly speaking I don't feel like reviving them. Such is the reason why I fear their death.

My social life does exist, I can't complain about intensity of my social interactions (three times out in town over the last week), yet it is not as abundant as of single women who can boast of more robust social capital, built mostly on relationships with fellow females.

With respect to discontinued involvement in Szlachetna Paczka, my decision taken during the recent edition is upheld. I feel burnt out, too much has gone wrong and it would be too hard to make up for it. Moreover, with current work-related duties, the Paczka would be too time-consuming. My lookout for an alternative volunteering has not yet commenced. Maybe I'm putting it back to cool down.

Am I one of those, whose self-fulfilment hinges upon raising a family, primarily passing my genes to the next generation, or, as the malicious one would put into in words – leaving the offspring to this lousy, overcrowded planet?

Are my efforts to pursue the above doomed to fail? Dating-wise, I can't gripe about lack of interest from women (a problem several males of my age have) on dating apps (which is a far broader universe than offline world). Why doesn't it then develop into a relationship? After over a year I make out two repeatable scenarios: either a woman asks more questions to find out if I live up to her expectations and at that stage her letdown comes up (beneficial for everyone, wasted time spared) or we meet in person, often want to meet again or even do so, but it turns out she has no room in her life (in which she's tremendously busy) to fit getting to know a man better. Those women will most likely end up as happy singles.

Writing about interest, unpaid versions of popular dating apps show you some details of persons who swiped you right, including the age. From there I know more than two-third of women interested in me are aged 38 or more. Women in early 30s seeking a male a few years older are in minority. With such age profile of potential life companions, odds to become a father dwindle.

This might be the moment to ask myself a question whether it makes sense to pair up, but not have children. Such relationship would always contain the missing piece, an unsatisfied desire with a potential to blow up a relationship, even if both partners want offspring, but for reasons beyond their control can't have it.

I'm most fed up with going through the same scheme with every match, an experience of fatigue most dating app users are familiar with. The natural defence mechanism is taking breaks, to start over after a while. The in-person meetings are usually a nicely spent time, though getting me nowhere. They are just a form of temporal escape from a mundane reality.

In these lousy times like never before people seek outbursts of dopamine brought by travels, doing sports, fine dining, profligate consumption, seeking attention in social media, less frequently casual sex (I suspect some women have so many other sources of dopamine that they no longer need it). Travels and doing sport bring me joy, some other dopamine triggers don't work with me. Taking delight in pleasurable activities does give relief from the void, partly in the same way as intoxication gives short-term relief from the sorrow of being alive. I wish I can rise above it

Raising children and keeping them company, as they reach next stages of their lives moves a parent's life ahead. You wait for their first words, first day in nursery school, then next stages of education, doing things together, their first boyfriend or girlfriend, first job, then grandchildren. The very latter one becomes an unfulfilled dream of many contemporary folks in their 60s or 70s. Without offspring, life shapes like a circle. You may wait for a next trip to another continent or for another shot of dopamine, for the decease of your parents, you may live your siblings' children's life. Alternatively, you may fall in a self-development trap at which I look with disdain.

Upon talking to friends, then to AI (who does not ask philosophical questions to technology?) I have reached a conclusion I long for a sense of belonging, most easily found in romantic relationships and difficult to feel in a world spoilt by staring at smartphone screens.

Quite recently I got familiar with a concept devised by Paul Gilbert who posits humans exist within three circles: threat, drive and soothing. A proper balance between the three is critical for one's well-being. I swing between the two former, while in the latter circle I can find myself for short moments only, too short to restore a piece of mind, truly relax and calm down.

If my Guardian angel was to have their say about the above, what would they say?

Eight dates - book review

Definitely I am not a fan of counselling, nor am I keen to give or receive advice how to live. Nevertheless, my choice of books I read is mostly based on recommendations (most often given by friends, less frequently run across when reading), so when a friend, who is a post-graduate psychology student, suggested I borrow the aforementioned script from a local library, I followed her endorsement.

The book, written by a relationship guru John M. Gottman (most famous for this theory of four horsemen of relationship doom: criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling) and his wife, emphasises the role of open, honest and straightforward communication in a romantic relationship. As the authors point out, areas crucial for relationship out to be talked over, in order to enhance mutual understanding in a relationship. Judging by stories of divorces and break-ups, many could have been evaded, had people spoken up properly early. The journey through getting more familiar with each other runs through eight conversation topics for eight separate dates. I split them into chapters, in line with how the manuscript is structured.

Chapter 1: trust and commitment. Those are the notions individuals may construe and exhibit differently. The authors forget to add no relationship can survive in long run without trust and without putting a partner’s trust to the test (imagine your partners leaving for a weekend in a woods only with their friend of the opposite sex, assuming you are in a heterosexual couple). Commitment in turn may be shown in several ways and may vary in intensity. A blossoming relationship should match expectations of partners and most natural ways of expressing commitment, with reliability being sometimes a forgotten (also in the book) part of it.

Chapter 2: addressing conflict. Where two people meet, differences leading to clashes will inevitably turn up. Reasons for divergence might be twofold: either situational, i.e. stemming from a person’s behaviour, or fundamental, i.e. arising from different hierarchy of values or lifestyle. The former are easily curable and not difficult to deal with, unless at least one partner is stubborn. The latter are to be (or not) learnt to be lived with. Statistics from long-term research sample of relationships Gottmans examined over years revealed 69% of long-lasting couples had to cope with fundamental differences and got ahead despite hardships.

Chapter 3: sex and intimacy. In a monogamic relationship this is a sphere reserved for a partner only, so any deficiencies as a matter of principle should not be made up for with other people. On top, since generations this has been a taboo topic hence an open conversation on one’s desires, limitations, fear and inhibitions might be difficult.

Chapter 4: work and money. Here I must say authors have done a reasonably good job of describing two drivers of attitude towards money. Highly generalising, some people treat money primarily as a source of security (in case of unemployment, illness, to ensure income for retirement), others as a source of pleasure (the joy of consumption). A conversation about money should be hence grounded in what money means for a person and what habits one has learnt at home. Money-related issues are one of the most common conflict areas in relationships, hence talking about it is a must. Aside from what the authors come up with, I would add managing finances is about balancing long-term goals (retirement, education for children, property purchases) and short-term consumption. Overweighting any of two ways of allocating pecuniary surpluses might end up badly, but a couple should together how much of current consumption they wish to sacrifice to pursue long-term goals. Earning money refers also to striking a balance between working more to increase wealth and spending time with nearest and dearest. The proportions might and will differ at specific stages of life, but the decision where to set the scales ought to be taken together.

Chapter 5: family. The writers claim many differences may be overcome, but vision of family is a fundamental one and a disagreement in this respect is so critical that it may lead to a relationship break-up and no cure for it ought to be sought. The word “family” refers to the one raised by a couple, which involves several questions, not just if to have offspring or not. Couples should ask themselves how many children they want to raise, when, how to share childcare duties and how to bring them up. Children, in order to grow up happily need both loving parents, the relationship between them should not be neglected at the expense of time spent looking after offspring. One day they will fly the nest and the bond between partners should be strong enough to allow for rebirth of their relationship at that stage. The same word also pertains to families in which partners were raised, frequence and intensity or relationships with relatives as they are also one of more frequent motives for quarrels.

Chapter 6: fun and adventure. This part is about not letting a mature relationship rest on laurels and reigniting it by trying out new activities and taking breaks from a daily grind. The authors emphasise definitions of adventure may vary between partners, yet in this area there is room for parting company and having fun separately (after all, it is about trust).

Chapter 7: growth and spirituality. The title is enigmatic and might be misleading, but it is all about values cherished, religion and vision of what you pursue in life. A common topic in Poland these days is a gap between females who have moved ahead and men who are lagging behind, being the core reason for lower number of relationships and subsequent demographic collapse. I presume this could suit the definition of “growth” as set forth by Gottmans. In this area there is room for divergence, yet if one partner carries on and the other does not catch up, in practice is a common cause of break-ups, especially those initiated by women.

Chapter 8: dreams. The last chapter is forward-looking and is a logical consequence of the previous one. Chasing dreams can make the daily grind more bearable. One should know what dreams and aspirations of one’s partner’s are and see them through in pursuing them. Here what the authors posit might require a lot of tolerance, patience and understanding, if a partner’s dreams are grossly opposing from ours. But what if pursuit of a dream might undermine a relationship or put it to the test? The book leaves this open question unanswered.

One notion props up several times in the book. There is, agreeably, just one mark partners in a boding-well relationships have in common, namely they are positive about their life companions. The more pros than cons they see in their partner, the more likely their relationship is to flourish and remain crisis-resistant. When making long-term choices who to spend life with, we must not forget about it.

A man's search for meaning

I have recently drastically ramped up the number of books read, with my pipeline being compiled from recommendations in the media or from friends. With the two sources being at times insufficient, AI turns out to be a (not flawless) source of inspiration.

Not a long ago, prompted by recurring thoughts on how to arrange my life, if the fate does not bring a chance to raise a family, I asked chatGPT to recommended readings on searching for a sense in life. The item which popped up as a first non-philosophical book was the one by Victor E. Frankl.

The author was an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist, but above all, a concentration camp survivor. He wrote the first version of his work in 1946, as the memories of shirking annihilation were still fresh. As he quotes the statistics, ex-post odds to come out alive of a concentration camp, were 1 to 28. Those who survived until "liberation" (whatever evil you may say of the Soviet army, prisoners of Nazi concentration camps were saved from death by them) were not lucky, nor of extraordinary stamina, nor had much lust for life. As Mr Frankl pointed out, they kept seeing deeper sense of their suffering and chased dignity in places where it was downtrodden.

The experience of concentration camp survival laid foundations for logotherapy, a therapeutic approach which is uncommon these days. Note the book, though augmented twice, the last time in 1984, might appear outdated today, as human life and relationships have been deeply reshaped over the last decades. The second chapter of the book, written sometime between 1946 and 1984, concisely and approachably summarises basics of logotherapy, which I dare to interpret below.

According to the author, the basic driver of a sense of meaning in life is a pursuit of a mission being accomplished. Be it inventing a cure for cancer, raising a family, constructing bridges or helping orphans as a volunteer - life must a have a defined goal, which either is chased indefinitely or offers deep self-fulfilment when achieved.

The mission pursued lifts a human out of two states into which humans inevitably plunge and between which they then swing - boredom and despair. In early industrial times, when physical labour was took up 50 - 60 hours a week and running a house and a raising a multi-child family occupied most of the time, little time was left for boredom, so the despair prevailed. In post-industrial era, with shorter working hours and several appliances taking mundane duties off people in developed countries, boredom takes over. Although life seems easier now, lifting oneself from boredom is more problematic than overcoming despair a century ago. Despair comes up when life overwhelms you. Boredom creeps up when you lack resources to fill the void.

The meaning of life has three dimensions:
1) work or action - either as part of your vocational duties or voluntarily you create something, which brings you some benefits or prompts positive feelings,
2) relationships and experiencing - draw on the concept no man as an island and interactions with fellow humans add much value to our lives, however taking pleasure in nature, art or exploring new places to bring delight to our senses also may be a goal to be pursued,
3) suffering - is not a compulsory element of searching the meaning, but once life confronts you with illness, pain, bereavement or loss of wealth, it gives you a chance to be reborn and to redefine your dignity.

Upon reading the book I am pretty sure the fate has a plan for each of us. I also approach the future, no matter how not bright it might be, with more humility and faith things will shape up.

In condemnation of oversized vehicles

My deep dislike for agrestic oversized vehicles has not been a secret for many readers of this blog for years. I could go on and write a tirade how far too big vehicles reflect their users’ oversized ego, megalomania, inferiority complex, but… spewing out so many insults would mean hurting some of my good friends and workmates, hence in order not to spoil my relationships with people I contain myself and in casual conversations only express my (strong) preference not to use such cars. Instead of compiling a yet another rant about their uselessness (they are not more capacious than a smaller and lighter well-designed estate cars) and lack of off-road capacities, I will make reference to a series of articles published recently in the Guardian, quote (italicised) the crucial takeaways and add a few words of my own comments.

1. Monsters of the road: what should the UK do about SUVs?

After a period of falling, the CO₂ emissions of new cars sold in both the UK and the EU have been rising since 2016. Experts attribute the reversal to an increase in SUV sales.
–> you won’t circumvent the laws of physics. Heavier vehicles need more power to be propelled and even with more fuel-efficiency improvements in place, a two-tonne SUV emits more carbon dioxide than a small city car manufactured in the 1990s, whose weight is over 50% lower. Actually if only cars kept being reasonably small, overall emissions would go down considerably.

For a couple of years, more than a decade ago, I was the car reviewer for the Guardian. I test drove very few SUVs, but on the rare occasions that I did, I experienced two distinct feelings. The first was a debilitating concern about navigating such a large vehicle through the capital’s congested streets. And the second, as that anxiety began to ease, was a sensation of being above the fray, apart from the crowd, somehow superior to my surroundings.
–> sitting higher and looking down on the surrounding traffic from above is what I detest about SUVs. Oddly enough, it does not make me feel any safer. I feel more comfortable in a “normal” car, where a gravity load is located lower.

After a slightly banal tour of west London’s A roads, I ask the salesman what the car is like at negotiating speed humps.
“Try accelerating towards one,” he suggests.
On a deserted side street I do just that, driving at the kind of speed over a “traffic-calming” hump that would rip out the undercarriage of my hatchback. The big-wheeled SUV glides over it. Thus measures implemented to protect pedestrians work very effectively with the cars that do least damage, but are next to useless with the cars that cause most harm.
–> this is one of the essences why I believe driving an SUV is anti-social…

I had an ominous encounter with this marketed anxiety one afternoon a while ago. As I carefully lined up my small hatchback to reverse into a parking space that faced out into a north London street, a great bulbous shiny black thing, like some armour-plated sci-fi machine, drove straight into “my” space and also occupied a couple of feet of the one next to it.
A moment later, an elegantly dressed woman in her 30s climbed down from the vehicle with its bumper wheels and blacked-out windows, and started to walk off. I called out that she’d left me no room to park. Exasperated, she complained that I should have told her when she was in the car, and reluctantly returned to re-park. After five or six attempts, she gave up and got out. She was still impeding the adjacent space, but not by as much.
“Excuse me,” I said, as she stomped off, “can I ask why you have such a big car?”
She looked at me as though I were some mad Unabomber-type, and in a voice quaking with righteous indignation snapped: “Because I’ve got a baby!”
At the time, it seemed an absurd response (it still does), but that woman’s perspective has become a cliche. The problem with building cars for the protection of those within them, however, is that it tends to have a deleterious effect on the protection of those without.
As Murray puts is: “If you’re driving around in a small lightweight vehicle and you have a collision with, say, a Land Rover Defender, it’s going to smash you to bits.”
–> if I come across a badly parked car in Poland, it usually is an SUV. Besides, the delusory sense of protection at the expense of other road users is an example of selfishness I cannot stand.

Even the slow switch to electric cars is an unsatisfying solution. EV design favours SUVs because the elevated seats allow space for the battery pack, but they tend to make electric SUVs even heavier than the petrol versions.
“With bigger vehicles,” says Hannon, “you’ll get less kilowatt/hour efficiency, more material used to build them, bigger battery packs, and there are serious supply chain concerns around precious metals and minerals that go into these vehicles, and questionable ethics associated with how they are mined and processed.”
–> I pointed out more than once electrics cars are a dead-end street, but the claim electric SUVs can combine the human megalomania and the climate protection issues is an enormous lie.

2. Motor emissions could have fallen by over 30% without SUV trend, report says

Emissions from the motor sector could have fallen by more than 30% between 2010 and 2022 if vehicles had stayed the same size, a report has found.
Instead, the size of the average car ballooned as the trend for SUVs took off, meaning the global annual rate of energy intensity reductions – the fall in fuel used – of light-duty vehicles (LDV) averaged 4.2% between 2020 and 2022.
–> this is anything, but surprising…

The authors of the report called for governments to place restrictions on vehicle sizes to reverse the SUV trend.
–> I am sceptical towards pure restrictions and would rather call for heavy sin taxes for such vehicles, predominantly on purchases of new vehicles, less severe on ownership of existing ones, to price in (even excessively) their detriment to the environment.

3. SUVs emit more climate damaging gas than older cars do, study finds
–> this article is behind the paywall, but the message from the heading stands to reason. A 10-year-old small, sparingly used city car will do much less harm to the planet than an SUV used for one-per-car short-distance trips.

While keeping in mind an impending climate disaster, I do not tend to favour radical steps, as they bring out human defiance. When people are prohibited from doing something, they are even more tempted to do it. I believe financial penalties (heavy sin taxes) for selfish behaviours work much better. Being told you cannot afford to drive an SUV is a preferable solution to being forbidden to drive an SUV. You can say there still will be a handful of rich men driving embarrassingly chunky vehicles, but they will not constitute 50% of brand-new car sales, as they do now on many markets. SUVs are a product of marketing a useless good. Brushing aside all their drawbacks, they actually lack a major merit carmakers claim they have – space. A Skoda Octavia estate is more capacious in terms of space for passengers and luggage than an average SUV, while its kerb weight (standard petrol engines below 1.5 litre) is between 1.26 and 1.51 tonnes (depending on engine and equipment), some 25% lower than of a typical brand-new SUV. By dint of sheer mass difference, a petrol-fuelled Skoda Octavia estate 1.5 TSI emits (a bit) less CO2 per kilometre than a hybrid Toyota RAV4, with large 2.5-litre engine and kerb weight of 1.91 tonnes. The numbers speak for themselves, but they are sadly unlikely to convince consumers fond of “obese” cars…

Less is more - book review

I sadly cannot recall how I have come across the book by Jason Hickel. Most probably via a mention of it in a newspaper article. As with most books I spot, I ordered it in a local library and waited my turn to borrow it.

The work starts off with analogy to early days of the coronavirus pandemic when the mankind subjugated to strict lockdown regimes in the face of peril. The government-imposed discipline was meant to prove humans can sacrifice to fend off a disaster. The author has forgotten the adherence to stringent social distancing rules was short-lasting and during the next waves of the virus in late 2020 and early 2021 several deaths could have been put down to a lockdown fatigue.

Humans can make big, but short-lasting sacrifices, while tacking the global warming is a long-distance issue which has to prompt the western world to rethink its priorities. Actually, each and every area of life will need to affected: housing, travelling, eating, manufacturing, agriculture, consuming. As the author points out, life of upper classes in rich countries ought to be turned upside down, not to avoid a cataclysm, but just to diminish its scale.

The book espouses a wide criticism of GDP growth as a measure of development and as an overriding goal in capitalism. I share the view GDP is a grossly imperfect indicator of economic well-being, with a tiny correlation with happiness and life quality, but have become fed up with the obsession of the evil capitalism. Yes, free market is imperfect, yet nobody has come up with any sensible alternative so far.

The observation the author illustrates and which I share is that we have to continually work more to afford to have needs met and the more we work, the shorter of time we are. It starts with a basic need which is the roof over one's head. Does not matter whether you buy it or rent it, the cost in relation to your annual wage is several times higher than a few decades ago. You have to then work more you pay your landlord or to make mortgage repayments. If you need to work more, you lack time to cook, clean your house, etc., therefore you decide to farm it out and need to work more to pay for the outsourcing. Mr Hickel puts forward working less and doing more with one's own hands, the idea which takes my fancy as an alternative to a treadmill people around me are in.

Being mindful how adverse consequences of climate changes are, we agree limitations to the western world's current lifestyle are justified. But can they be imposed by governments or should they be rather encouraged or discouraged? Prohibitions are associated with authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, while financial benefits and fines more delicately indicate what is desirable. 

Such reasoning naturally leads to a question about limits of personal liberties. Traditionally, they have been constrained by other people's freedom and well-being. The impending climate catastrophe prompts us to revise it and broaden to the planet's well-being.

Humans as a mass by nature are defiant rather than obedient. If something if forbidden, defiant humans are more tempted to do this, therefore I suppose a carrot would work better than a stick. The problem is we have probably run out of time to play with carrots and sticks, when the earth is getting increasingly hotter.

Michael warned me the book's purport was leftist and indeed, a radical angle was clearly felt. I believe a more moderate language could be more effective in persuading middle-of-the-road readers to revise their lifestyle. Mr Hickel with his leftist tilt sadly lacks such power and by many will be labelled as left-wing lunatic.

The worst human trait, redefined

More than a decade ago, I claimed unreliability is a human trait I detest the most. Although I have not changed my mind about that one, today what winds me up much more is procrastination, being often one step ahead of the unreliability.

The word, translated nearly literally into Polish as prokrastynacja (in my books zwlekactwo), has made it big with psychologists and those who explore whys and wherefores of the human nature. Some define it as a problem, others as indispensable part of being good enough and letting up when necessary. I hold the view it is a shortcoming which makes my hackles rise and which humans ought to try to overcome.

When I am to set about doing something, no matter if ordered by somebody or off my own bat, I either move on without further ado or plan the onset of the activity for a defined moment in the future when circumstances are likely to permit. I dislike having at the back of my head some overdue stuff waits to be sorted out. Besides, not putting back doing things is a part of fairness towards fellow people and myself.

But most people do not handle it my way. I have identified four reasons why humans tend do delay what they are meant to do.
Firstly, I put it down to overt laziness (does not need extra commenting I believe).
Secondly, for some individuals "taking their time" is a part of their mindset and their lack of hurry extends into procrastination. Alternatively some humans are excited by doing things at eleventh hour and feel most motivated when a deadline pushes them.
Thirdly, it is a matter of being overwhelmed with other duties or having different priorities. This is a sign of our times, featured with constant overload.
Fourtly, and I believe this reason is underappreciated, the delay driver is a fear of taking a wrong decision or making a wrong step - by proscrastinating, people allow themselves to spend more time on analysis (sometimes leading up to a paralysis).

I hazard a guess losers tend to procrastinate. Opportunities in life have to be chased. Once they come up, decisiveness and quick reaction let humans grab them and get ahead.

Setting the sliders

Inspired by a cycle of eight "Setting the sliders" notes dated March 2011, by Michael.

Life is an endless quest for a balance. As part of the nature, humans naturally search for it. The most popular type of balance these days is the work-life balance, being a theoretical response to ruthless corporations exploiting their staff much longer than during customary nine-to-five cycles. The corporations claim to foster the work-life balance, but since their declarations are hollow, the EU institutions have attempted to regulate it. Then the corporations will aim to circumvent those laws. Well, it is a topic for a separate post...

In this one I struggle to find trade-offs in manifold areas of life.

Getting involved in a romantic relationship, one gives up on a part of their independence. Being with some means minding their feelings and needs and undertaking commitments towards a life companion. This takes striving, but should not take bending over backwards. People pair up since benefits of being together outweigh nuisances of making concessions. I believe one should strike a balance between their autonomy as an individual and some indispensable sacrifices.

A part of turning an adult is taking responsibility for one's deeds and life. Psychologists posit those contraventing such scheme are afflicted by Peter Pan syndrome, attributed usually to males who refuse to grow up and farewell the carefree days of childhood. For me being responsible is a crucial part of adulthood and proves a man's maturity. Nevertheless, carefree moments ought to be pursued in life and cherished, bearing in mind life is not a bed of roses.

The above brings to mind the idiom "business before pleasure", which sadly has no equivalent in Polish. As a child, not prompted by my parents, after coming from school I firstly did my homework and then played. An adult life involves duties and doing them with humility is a part of our existence. With affluence, people tend to work more to shift the most mundane duties to others. The growing popularity of farming out house cleaning or ordering food catering boxes instead of cooking confirms such trend. But is it just convenience and making use of one's money to enhance the comfort of life, or... shunning duties?

"Failing to prepare is preparing to fail" - some say. Preparing involves planning and planning clashes with spontainety. Spontainety symbolises carefree life, lack of limitations and boundaries. Should we give on spotainety altogether? Do not dare to do so, don't let your daily routine underwhelm you, let in the element of thrill to your life, but whatever you do, do it prudently and mind the outcome.

Unless your ancestors were wealthy and thrifty, you have to work to earn a livelihood. Your wage is usually a combination of education, skills, luck, but not only. A correlation between how hard you work and financial gains maybe is not very strong, yet apparently positive. Having spent over 13 years in the corporate reality, I observe the propensity to work harder than others declines with age. This is perfectly in line with the curve of earnings, increasing with years of experience, rising affluence (a marginal utility of each next unit of income is lower), human body's lower tolerance for intensive working, but particularly with priorities changing over lifetime. The more you have accumulated, the more you cherish the time spent with family, friends, physical activity or fostering hobbies.

If you earn little, most likely your have to watch every penny before spending and barely make ends meet. When your income rises, you might spend more, but not necessarily have to. Day-to-day survival gives way to planning and long-term goals. One has to make a choice what portion on the current income to consume and how much to aside for the future and with what purpose in mind. Saving for the very sake of saving and spending for a very sake of spending are both no good. Both spending and saving (which means not just putting aside money, but looking for ways for paying less for something) deserve a wise, emotion-free approach.

While interacting with other humans one makes mistakes. A noble man can admit their mistakes and, if possible, make up for them. A noble man's trait is modesty too. Boasting of one's accomplishments outside the corporate world is not the most commendable method of underlining one's presence. A prudent man also knows their limitations and does not overestimate their skills. Humility then is a great virtue I believe, the one which helps one attain long-term goals.

Lofty ideas of a perfect world are cruelly confronted with imperfect reality. Life involves compromising, yet it should have some limits, with moral principals (universal or subjective) setting boundary of how far can we give up on ideal solutions we long for. Not every price is worth paying, but freeriding as sneaking through life without effort is not worthwhile too.

No extreme is good. Keep it in mind when making your daily choices, but also when going to the polls in five weeks...

Being happy in Alaska - book review

Last Saturday, while being at loose end at my girlfriend’s mother house, I grabbed a book written by a Spanish psychologist which I’d spotted on a shelf and, with a prospect of finding myself some way of passing time until she does the make-up before setting off for the wedding, read it from cover to cover.

I am not fond of guides, nor any sorts of books which are meant to utterly change your life in the wake of the read. As a person who likes to dive into intricacies, fascinated with complexity of the world, I am unlikely to be convinced to quick fixes or delusive simple solutions.

What particularly does not take my fancy is the notion of carefree life cherished in the book. Carefree moments are essential, but unless you are a selfish hedonist, carefree life appears a detrimental daydream. Besides, it is easy to advise people to abandon all their worries if you are a healthy and wealthy bachelor. Try recommending this to somebody who needs to earn a livelihood and pay for a therapy of their terminally ill child! Even if circumstances are not that dire, life is generally about mundane stuff, punctuated with joyful moments, about obligations towards the nearest and dearest and making compromises to foster relationships.

To avoid an impression that my judgement of the book is one-sided, I have noticed several threads which I see eye to eye with the author.

Life ought to be put into perspective – instead of craving for more, we ought to appreciate what we have and notice others are not lucky enough to enjoy good health, financial comfort, satisfying job, happy relationships etc. Gratitude for little things and delight in little pleasures should fill our lives.

Mental strength is to be honed and developed in all stages of life. Life should not be about fretting and worrying.

Humans should accept the inevitable and learn to live with the prospect of it. If there is anything one can be sure about, it is, except for taxes, one’s own death. The decease is something you should not fear, like all events which you can’t escape. There are, of course, events which you may strive to avert, such as traffic accidents. But fearing them makes no sense as well. Taking precautions does make sense.

A rest is natural state of a human. I believe in a balanced life there should be time for work and for rest. To foster mental health, a human should know how to relax and recharge batteries, so that the working phase is used possibly effectively.

The author also gives valuable hints on talking to people with different views. In Poland, we tend to clash about politics and other stuff which draw divide lines in the society. When a dissenter becomes an enemy, any form of dialogue seems out of reach. Bridging the worlds which are apart is a craft and may help overcome discords within the family or friends.

Moving to the critical look at the book.

Having had an experience with episodes of depression and having gone an extra mile to understand the causes of the illness, I realise a blend of medicines and therapy is essential to cure a person affected by it. The milder the symptoms, the more therapy, the less pills, but in awful cases starting a therapy is impossible without bringing a patient into order with medicines. The author shrugs it off and claims a positive approach to life is sufficient to combat several mental disturbances. Such view is contrary to how evidence-based medicine (these days I am particularly sensitive to all assertions which undermine science) explains causes of mental disturbances and hence harmful. A change in approach is recommendable to grumblers and whiners, but not to mentally ill who need professional medical help.

The author seems to disregard the fact people have different personalities, different sets of traits, different psyches and those differences are innate. A human can decide to work to reshape themselves, but within reasonable limits of “staying yourself”. I realise the ideas of programming consciousness have grown popular recently, yet I remain sceptical towards them.

Two other concepts I find outlandish are that after a romantic relationship ends people can stay best friends (a separate post could be written why I believe this is not the best solution, except for situations when people have children) and that lack of particular skills stems from lack of self-belief in those skills. No, if somebody who lacks talent for driving believes they are a seasoned driver, they may bring misery on innocent people. I am not a talented football player and this does not come from my self-limitation or flawed belief. I just do not need to play football well to be happy and should not be ashamed of this. But overcoming my self-critical judgement to free up my potential to become a master on a football pitch sounds like a ridiculous idea.

All in all, the read of the book which had come into my hands accidentally was quite daunting. After a few months of reading-wise laziness, I am about to catch up. Several books ordered online in a local library and await my attention.

Live by your rules

An odd jumble of thoughts inspired by the recent definitely not uneventful (who else think double negations take away from clarity of a sentence?) week…

1. Communication between males should be straightforward. If you bear a grudge against your male mate, tell it to him straight in his face. Whenever a discord arises between you, speak out and get it off your chest. Courage is a man’s virtue, so do make use of it and have your say.

2. Some women are like monkeys. A monkey, while jumping around trees, needs to grab one branch before letting the other. Some women will not quit her current boyfriend before they find another one and ensure they will have a smooth landing in his arms just after thy break up. I find it disgusting…

3. This links to thought #2. Bring yourself into order before you start over. This means after you decide to terminate a relationship, get over it, realise what has been wrong with it and what you do not want to repeat in the next one.

4. If you want, you will find a way, if you do not want, you will find an excuse.

5. If you have a problem with yourself, firstly admit it and define it. If you fail to cope with it yourself, nor your friends are capable of helping you, consult a therapist. This is not a shame, a shame is to get stuck in a mire.

6. There is no room for mercy in business. The corporate world occasionally gives somebody hard time or just sends somebody under. If this is a part of the game, so shape up or ship out.

7. The universe is in a balance. The evil you receive from people into the long run is counterbalanced by the good. While the former hurts, the latter must be discerned, taken with gratitude and paid back for.

8. Karma always returns. Being good to fellow humans disinterestedly pays off in moments of predicament even when you least expect it.

9. Even if you think you are a misfit, look around. Quite certainly there are several misfits whose look at the world is akin to yours.

10. See further than the end of your nose. A recent research on motivations of main political parties electorates shows majority of voters of KO and Lewica back the opposition since the vision of a country their favourite party presents squares with their view, while those who support PiS do it since the ruling party ensures their personal benefits (pecuniary allowances).

Perfectionism

“To strive for perfection” is a phrase I have frequently used on this blog, in several contexts, however each time it has had a positive purport.

On Thursday morning on my way to work I was listening to a radio and learnt 7 February was a worldwide festival of perfectionism. A query to the most popular search engine has not confirmed that piece of information, but even if the światowy dzień perfekcjonizmu was just another figment of journalists’ imagination (or fake news, something I detest), it has prompted me to rethink whether endless striving for perfection is at all times positive.

Whatever you indulge in, do it with restraint. Endless pursuit of excellence is another example of obsession, a perilous one. If on every step you try your hardest to do things perfectly, your existence stands a chance to be turned into veritable hell. Perfectionism slowly kills not only the one afflicted with it, but also people around them. A perfectionist boss is a pest to their subordinates, a perfectionist spouse or parent incessantly infuriates their relatives.

Perfectionism in imperfect world, where most people display couldn’t-care-less approach makes one’s life a string of frustrations and disappointments, since the surrounding world constantly fails to fall into line with a perfectionist’s expectations.

Personally, I am also perfectionism-stricken, albeit I believe to a moderate extent. Over time life has taught me to ease up, just not to go crazy. I also control myself not to formulate exorbitant expectations towards other people. On the other hand, my current manager is much tougher perfectionist than me and we get along… perfectly.

I envy easy-going people, whose lives are free of quandaries I can create in my head. People not fond of neatness, tidiness, orderliness seem happier than me. On the other hand, I realise while I might fight my drawbacks, attempts to turn myself into a different man even if they did not go in vain, they would not make me happy. Only being oneself, living according to one’s values may assure happiness.

On the remont front, the builders have finished their job yesterday. More on the recent tribulations soon. The end is near, but the home straight is a sort of windy and bumpy...

It's a heartache

Looked like I have gotten over the break-up and moved ahead. Time has proven wounds could not heal to easily. The very process of getting over gradually was disrupted by the hassle with the newly purchased flat. Negotiations began shortly after I moved out to Bielany, the notarial deed was signed two weeks later, then the very first part of refurbishment ensued. A week ago I ran out of works I could do on my own and could only focus on waiting for crews (delivery of my windows and sills is already delayed by one week!) and arranging stuff for the next stages of works. This coincided with a lighter period at work; consequently I found myself with a bit of more time to think…

The flat purchase was a good decision, a move I should not have put back, but at that very time was a very convenient hideout and time-filler (not necessarily a soul-healer) to drown out my sorrows and regrets.

More than two months after, I still consider my decision to be the best possible (and based on what I know how my ex-gf is doing, time has proven me right), but the heartache refuses to let up. For some reason I have recently recalled mostly the good moments, though the worse ones prevailed in the last weeks of the relationship. Funny how human psyche can play tricks and alter the memory of the past.

As I have definitely not gotten over the break-up, I cannot consider myself ready for a new beginning. It’s not just about “working through” the mistakes of the past and giving myself a rest, it is not about general lack of time I will be plagued by in the coming weeks.

I need to focus on myself, my needs, on what brings me joy and simply do my bit to chase happiness. Do my bit, without seeking company as pre-condition for having good time. And get to grips with my propensity to give and to look after somebody overly.

I have brought back the days after the break-up when I still prepared packed lunch for my ex-gf, ironed her clothes and actually acted as if nothing had happened and with hindsight I have realized how pathological it had been. Now I miss taking care of somebody, inordinately miss it.

Besides, a life companion must not be a person who fills in the emptiness that these days blows me over from inside. Before I reach out for a woman, I must fill the empty space in my soul on my own.

My observations from several occasions to mingle with people do not fill with optimism. In the era when smartphone is the main device facilitating communication (without which talks is hardly imaginable to many younger people), openness of humans around leaves a lot to be desired. I have no idea why so many singles of my age are so selfish, prefer to hide inside their shells rather than making the effort to open themselves to fellow human beings. After many years spent single, such a move is a step out of the comfort zone, however it needs to be taken to change a lonely life. Fear of a change is what keeps people in bad relationships, but also keeps people single. As you decide to get involved with somebody, the fair balance between staying yourself and sticking to your fundamental values and combating the habits developed over years of being single is an art. Realising and pursuing this is, I suppose, crucial to foster a rewarding relationship.

As an anecdote – my friend suggested I install Tinder in my smartphone and try going out with women matched there. My first reaction was that I would not use an application used by seeking a specific form of fun ;-), but heard more and more people use it as regular dating application or to find company. With quite little to lose, maybe this option is worth considering.

Stressed-out, but why?

Psychologists, also those home-grown, excel at compiling seemingly useless rankings of most stressful events in life. The lists are usually based on surveys and top picks such as spouse’s death, divorce of job loss tend to repeat on all of them.

Oddly enough, when you speak of stress factors, traumatic events, such as bereavement, break-up or some other manifestations of losses naturally spring to mind. As it turns out, both trauma and joy can bring about serious anxiety. Nearly all life events which rank among top10 most stressful situations have one common denominator – they entail a noticeable change in life, which might be either positive or negative. If your close relative passes away, if you divorce, if your offspring fly the nest, the change is (in most instances) irreversible and you have get over it. On the other hand, birth of a child, taking up new job, getting seriously involved in a relationship (especially after years of living on one’s own), or moving to a new place, are considered to be positive changes in life, yet for most people cause some degree of tension.

The rankings also contain nerve-fraying events one has to live through, such as family gatherings during Christmas, meeting girlfriend’s or boyfriend’s parents for the first time, public speeches (for individuals affected by stage fright), job interviews, visits to a dentist or just doing something for the first time (travelling abroad, etc.).

Definitely stress should be tamed, yet since humans vary between among one another, there is no suitable-to-all prescription for coping with it. Personally, I strive to rationalise what exactly can cause anxiety, i.e. dig down to reach the roots of my anxiety and overpower them directly. I cannot claim to be successful all the time, but I am proud to have brought under control stress at workplace and to have learnt to keep safe distance towards things which wind up but are beyond my control.

Finally, I posit people get stressed-out every time they walk out of their comfort zone, which leads to a foregone conclusion stress is in many situations positive and natural since it accompanies making your dreams come true. As my friends says, everything you dream of is on the other side of you fears, the fears you need to overcome. In other situations, i.e. those categorised as traumas, experiencing stress proves we are humans and cannot get over some events in life devoid of feelings. 

Off to Italy in business next Sunday, so the next posting (photo coverage of the trip) around 17 September.