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.

Defiance

If the was a ranking of Poles’ most infuriating traits, I would place defiance on top of it. Looking at misbehaviours of many of my compatriots, I surmise they do silly things not only out of their selfishness, but to spite others and to manifest their ill-construed freedom.

I am a member of Obywatele Ursynowa group on facebook. The community has now more than 20,000 members and is an online arena of clashes. Pedestrians, cyclist and drivers clash. Dog-owners and turd-hunters clash. Around the New Year’s Eve firework-aficionados clashed with defenders of fearful pets. And so on and so forth.

The set-up of each quarrel is similar. Representatives of one band make their points, then representatives of the opposite band come up with their counterpoints which leads to online fights in which, apart from insults and lack of openness to someone else’s standpoint, I observe examples of sticking to one’s liberties stubbornly.

Fireworks zealots underline their right to celebrate New Year’s Eve (and Day). Pet-defenders underline right of animals to survive the night without tranquilizers. The latter group are occasionally supported by those who (rightly) remind the sound of cracking fireworks is bothersome for infants, elderly and mentally disabled people, as well as contributes to fires and injuries. The fireworks zealots remain deaf and blind to reasoning of their opponents and end up banning fireworks detracts from their personal liberty. Note then next each year, despite more frequent appeals to shun shooting fireworks, the cannonades are getting only louder. I fear the appeals are counter-productive, I mean, if a Pole is asked to refrain from doing something, they will do it with more intensity, out of pure defiance.

Similar examples of what f**ks me up are:

- drivers’ claims no one should take away their liberty of sitting in oversized cars in traffic jams, taking short-distance journeys, or to park wherever they need, especially when they occupy pavements or damage green areas,

- owners of old houses who burn rubbish or whatever cheap stuff in their furnaces, who claim mandatory switching to more environment-friendly method of heating their dwellings deprives them of doing what they want in their houses,

- people dumping rubbish or not cleaning their dogs’ turds, claiming no one would instruct them what to do in a public space,

- cyclists who ride like lunatics on pedestrian areas or use a road when there is a cycling path running parallel to it, claiming it is their choice where to cycle,

- party participants who claim playing music loud or screaming their lungs out at night is what they are entitled to as part of having fun.

and many, many others.

The common denominator of all stances described above is doing socially undesirable things at the expense of others. One’s own liberty ends with encroaching on fellow men’s freedoms and rights, including the right to breathe in clean air, to live in clean environment, to feel safe, to have rest at night, etc.

A decent and sensitive human should mind whether to make full use of what is (sometimes mistakenly) considered to be a liberty. A self-containment in all spheres, namely not necessarily doing what you want to not indulging in what brings you joy, but might make others worse-off is what I praise and advocate.

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...

On soft competencies

Since in the recent days I have focused most on getting by and struggling not to lag behind with piling-up stuff to handle at work, today I’m sharing some odd, unstructured concepts from a workshop on improving workplace relationships I attended a few days ago.

It does not take a psychologist to notice that sets of traits specific people display pre-destine them to take up different jobs. A salesman who has to solicit new clients should be sociable, extraverted, determined, but does not necessarily need to have an eye for detail and might acceptably be chaotic while chasing several opportunities at the same time. An analyst in turn is rather introverted, has stronger analytical than social skills, is well-organised and keeps stuff in good order. Those two types of personalities need to interact with one another to move a corporation forward, yet because their perceptions of how work should be done vary by a long shot, salesmen and analysts tend to clash.

Workings of a corporation indispensably brings to mind the ever-up-to-date question, namely, if things go wrong, is the system or are the people to blame? Consider a situation in which a salesman’s goal is to acquire new clients, while an analyst has to evaluate whether taking on new clients is profitable, monitors and reviews portfolio of current clients. An analyst needs inputs from salesmen to prepare applications submitted to decision makers and to compile review papers for clients within allotted deadlines. An analyst then relies on inputs from salesmen to meet their own goals, yet delivering inputs to analysts is quite low on a list of salesmen’s priorities. Because goals of the two groups are not aligned, analysts keep chasing up salesmen to get their inputs, while salesmen do not give a damn and focus on their priorities. If additionally senior managers leniently treat salesmen who fail to deliver what analysts need to get on with their work, the system is to blame. If misconduct is tolerated by executives, salesmen get the message that it is acceptable and carry on not giving a damn.

The coach who delivered the training wanted to prove us the stick and carrot approach would not work in the hands of analysts attempting to motivate salesmen to co-operate in a proper manner. He pointed out punishments meted out by analysts (truth be told, they must not be severe) would not induce salesmen to deliver high-quality inputs to analysts timely. Because of analysts’ role in the organisation, they actually are not permitted to use the stick, so they should be beware and double-think not to harm themselves. The carrot, i.e. rewarding salesmen for professional behaviour also would not work, since no matter what they do, analysts need to do their job anyway – hence analysts, having higher comfort at work, are the main beneficiaries of giving out carrots, not salesmen, who at the end of the day are indifferent.

Another concept dwelled upon during the workshop was dealing with individuals claiming to be morally superior. As one theory states, the more morally superior one feels, they more they believe hurting others is justified and the less remorse they have over causing pain to others. The typical example is a husband who bullies his wife (because the soup was too salty) and because he believes his wife is a bad wife, while he is a good husband, he has the right to mistreat his wife (another example workshop participants instantly pointed at is Jarosław Kaczyński, who also claims to be morally superior)… In earnest, working (not to mention living) with such people is difficult, since if they abuse you, they feel they are empowered to do so and treat such situation as natural.

How much empathy should one demonstrate to one’s colleagues only seemingly is a simple question. Stepping into someone else’s shoes, understanding their standpoint, motivations and goals is a vital step towards improving workplace relationships, yet the issue is more intricate. Goals of individuals do not necessarily line up with those of a corporation. The most vivid example is applying work-life balance in practice. A corporation demands that a task is completed in unreasonably short time (which in practice requires staying overtime), while an employee wants to go home to look after their children. Human empathy tells you to let a worker go home, while interests of the corporation are at odds with human feelings are induce to motivate your colleague to stay in the office.

Manipulation as a method of attaining one’s goals brings out negative associations. This first impression, as the coach argued, and I hold the same view, is misleading. It all depends on goals and means one resorts t in order to meet them. As long as no crime, misconduct, violation of procedures nor other immoral deeds are involved, manipulation boils down to a set of actions aimed to steering others behaviours so that they help you reach your goals. Besides, if you feel your colleagues try to manipulate you crassly, the response in similar manner is a sign to them you are aware of their techniques and are armed with the same weapons. 

Corpo-reality is not a bed of roses, in order to survive you need thick skin and have to conform to the rules of that wicked game (to the extent your conscience lets you, if you approach a boundary, the only option might be to quit).

Restraint (powściągliwość, umiar)

The fortnight before the exam, the subsequent easing-off, the trip to Germany, the last weeks before job change – quite many head-on collisions with reality along the way. Haven’t come burnt and bruised out of them, however the recent two months have made me ponder upon true virtues of relationships with other people, when they are worth, when and how to foster them, what to appreciate in people and what kind of relationships to avoid.

One conclusion comes to the fore of my considerations; I have more and more respect for those who keep their distance towards the world and are adequately reserved towards other people. I particularly have a high regard for individuals who:

- keep a low profile,

- keep a cool head,

- are hardly ever thrown off balance, no matter how cards are stacked against them,

- do not raise their voice,

- do not bear a grudge,

- do not take umbrage,

- hold back from overly showing their emotions,

- refrain from profusely speaking about their private lives and sharing their predicaments with everyone around,

- do not wash their dirty linen in public,

- are not moody and hardly ever let other people know something is eating them,

- rarely boast about their achievements,

- do not flaunt nor show off their wealth or earnings,

- dress modestly,

- do not share every step they take on facebook,

- know where boundaries which should not be overstepped are,

- are humble,

- know what they are worth and do not strain to prove it to everyone around,

- do not judge the book by the cover,

- do not feel happy to see misery of someone they dislike,

- can find a common tongue with someone with who they are worlds apart,

- do not take for granted everything they are told,

- are assertive,

- have a moral spine,

- have courage to defend true values,

- do not pretend to be someone else than they really are,

- do not take liberties with other people, unless they are their close friends,

- are to some extent reserved towards other people

and on top of them are sympathetic, amicable, helpful, balanced, open and frank.

I hold dear the set of traits above and have the luck to have gotten to know more than a few people who fit the profile. I am pursuing to adopt all of them.

Back to relationships – I have began to strongly appreciate people who keep their distance when we first meet and at the beginning of the relationship, whatever the character of it is. The tentative approach to another man in a country of mistrust is quite natural, moreover getting too familiar with one another might actually spoil the phase of proper shaping the relationship. As people get to know each other better and if they are on the same wavelength, the distance between them will naturally shorten anyway. The pace at which it happens depends on many factors, but my experience has taught me, the longer it takes, the stronger and more durable the bond between people becomes.

There are several people you have several sorts of social relationships with – relatives, partners (spouses / girlfriends / boyfriends), close friends, acquaintances, workmates. I believe depending on the character of the relationship one should dose up the distance between them and the other person, because it… helps foster relationships. Maybe it sounds silly, but if I discern someone gives me more trust than to other people, our relationship is more likely to strengthen. I suppose many people have the need to be exceptional, be the one, be one of the only few, be the trusted ones and they feel the should pay back the same and so is their friendship reinforced. The precious restraint seems essential to let people recognise the true value of the relationship between them.

Tomorrow (over a week in advance of my last day at work) I’m staging a farewell gathering at work (which simply means I bring cakes, other sweats, beverages and folks show up to wish me good luck). This can serve as a good example. Over my four-year stint I was involved in several tasks reaching well beyond my job description; this also helped me developed a wide network of contacts with, as I counted, over two hundred fellow employees. Firstly, those who I had encountered incidentally, have not been informed about my departure. Secondly, those with who I wanted to share the blend of joy and sadness surrounding the job change, have been invited to the farewell. Thirdly, some of the invited, on account of the distance between us will not show up. Fourthly, the very symbolic moment of saying goodbye will speak volumes about the character of our relationships – with some females there will be kisses and hugs, with other women only hugs, with some men patting on the shoulders, with some workmates handshakes, some will be spared even a handshake. And fifthly, the closest workmates who I can call friends will deserve a more private, symbolic ‘goodbye’ which will mean only we will no longer work together.

Strange posting, isn’t it? Holds water?

Sorts of workmates

Following up on the last week’s post of job (or rather employer-related) lassitude, I compiled a list of personalities I have come across during my stint where I am who, not necessarily in large measure, have tended to throw me off balance. It does mean I wish to besmirch some types of behaviours or attitude towards work, nor claim I am free of all the shortcomings. Treat the wry depiction below with a pinch of salt. Despite some irritating traits, most of my workmates who served as prototypes for the list below are actually likeable :)

Piece-of-office-furniture. Office seems to be their first, not second, and preferable home. They spend more time there than they need to, most probably to show others how ardently they work or to avoid coming back home where bothersome spouse and vociferous offspring wait. Spending up to 12 hours a day in the office does not translate into higher efficiency, as they work long, but not smart. The only drawback for fellow workmates is that they expect other employees to keep late hours as they do and do not realise other people can have different priorities than spending evening at work.

Conceited. Always knows best, is wiser than others and thinks others are more stupid than they are. With time their intuition is often proven wrong, yet they always find excuses for why they missed by a long shot. Despite huge expertise hard to be persuade and standing their ground as a matter of principle.

Martyr. Tends to send e-mails in the middle of the night or during weekend just to show their workmates how committed they are and how much of their private time they sacrifice for the welfare of the company. Whenever you remind them what they were supposed to do, they barrage you with a litany of what they have on their plate and how busy they are. At the end of the day, their efficiency is not higher than average.

Irreplaceable. Frequently underlines how crucial for the company they are and how all the stuff would fall apart if they quitted. Unfortunately lacks courage to hand in a notice and provide empirical evidence for their assertions.

Scatterbrained. Might be good in setting up new relationships with clients, but fails to look after them, once they are established. Forgetful. Expects other people to take care of their affairs. As an employee might be precious for the company, but needs to be surrounded by more responsible persons…

Deadline-challenger. Whenever reminded of a tight deadline, they always respond there is a plenty of time and they will make it before deadline. Then when the eleventh hour comes up, they race against time and often lose the race. Not my style…

Nouveau-riche. Usually in their early thirties, after two or three promotions, with at least one earned in pre-crisis era, when bargaining power in negotiating salaries was much higher than today. Grew in provincial Poland in a poor family (I have nothing against such people as long as they behave normally) and shows off their first big money. Their ostentatious wealth is often debt-financed and most income is spent on lavish consumption intended to impress other people. Nothing condemnable, but not my style.

Dirty-linen-washer. Particularly intolerable in open plans where everyone hears everyone. Often tells stories from their private life that should not reach wider audience. Marital problems, break-up with partner or sexual habits are not what everyone around needs to listen about.

Trumpeter. Does little but talks a lot (and says little). Spends more time talking how much they do (blowing their own trumpet) and hence has little time to put in sheer hard work. Because of superb publicity they can make, they are often highly evaluated by supervisors, yet many managers have become immune to people who create less value than they claim to.

Office-politics fan. Knows everyone well, if familiar with what other people are like and generally in what is going on in the company. Knows who to flatter, who to avoid and how to conform to a specific situation. The only drawback is that they spend too much time devising office politics strategies than on sheer hard work.

Silent and dubious. Seldom opens their mouth. Is taciturn, rarely participates in conversations in which many people are engaged, but often listens in. Maybe this has appearance of a whistleblower obsession, but I am not fond of such types.

Lacking self-preservation instinct. Totally does not realise their position is unsustainable, unless a change is brought about, i.e. if no there is no work, their fruits of their work do not cover the costs of their position. Doing little and earning much even in a self-focused corporation is a short-term survival strategy, but in the long run, is dead-end.

Sponger. Akin to the aforementioned type, but lives off the backs of workmates. Knows a team needs to generate some value, but does everything to have possibly smallest share in that pie.

Beauty. Young, attractive female, aware of her charm and knowing how to use it. Does not have to make a step too far to achieve what she wants by only simpering with pliable males. I developed a strategy of playing a game with such women. I join it, pretend to fall for her and when she thinks the deal is nailed down, I back down ruthlessly.

Delegating. Their key activity is assorting tasks among other employees who are not their subordinates. I recall an e-mail from such person, written in a very professional language, stating we are in the point, where something has been achieved, further actions required are these and those, persons responsible for execution are these and those, deadlines are as set. In effect, tasks have been delegated and they will oversee. Quite annoying, but beware; this was the only person out of the prototype who has been fired, for their attitude towards work.

Not-give-but-take. Typical Polish entitlement advocate. They deserve a pay rise, appreciation from managers, an hour-long lunch break and to pop out for two hours to town when they need to handle something, but refuse to take up additional tasks or stay overtime. Ignores a simple rule that you cannot have a cake and eat it. Either you are a mediocre employee and you salary and position are also mediocre, or you stand out and then hold out for more.

And for the very end, my drawbacks at work:

- I tend to get hot-tempered,

- the tone of my voice is sometimes so unpleasant that my interlocutor can think I am ordering them about,

- what is worse, the tone of my voice is even condescending or patronising,

- I happen to claim I am right without double-checking facts backing my assertions,

- I am generally quite strict when I take steps to receive what I need to receive.

Humility is a virtue

Mayday’s episode on Smolensk Air Crash is due to have its world premiere today at 9 p.m. in National Geographic Channel’s Polish channel. Poles will be the first audience to see the purportedly unbiased coverage of the tragic flight and reasons behind the disaster.

The film has been hailed as prejudiced many months ago by PiS-backing Polish media, as its script is based solely on findings of two official reports on the crash, one drawn up by Russian MAK, the other prepared by the Polish parliamentary commission, run by Jerzy Miller (the series’ makers as a matter of principle rely on official reports rather than on conspiracy theories). Producers of the ‘one-sided’ film, who refused to incorporate possible causes such as blast, terrorist attack, were accused of being paid by the Russians to distort the real course of events to the audience in the world. The broader discussion on the controversial documentary is going to spark off after the broadcast (although many journalists have already seen the document during a dedicated show) and I will post my review of it next weekend (today I will not make it, over the busy week it will be impossible as well).

In the meantime I am taking the opportunity to invoke another report, authored by Japanese parliamentary panel investigating causes and aftermaths of Fukushima power plant disaster. If you recall the tragic events from March 2011, you bring to your mind pictures of cruel powers of nature which destroyed the plant. You blame the earthquake and the tsunami, while authors of the report claim this was a “man-made disaster”. If the read the BBC’s summary of the report’s findings, the picture which emerges is a sharp condemnation of Japanese culture, the nation’s shortcomings and stance of people responsible of overseeing maintenance of the plant and handling mitigating effect of the disaster. Actually the nation is pulled into pieces for its “culture of deference and reluctance to question authority”. Once negligence was covered up at the top, nobody at the bottom felt entitled to bring it to the light. The report was a bitter pill to swallow for the Japanese. They had the courage to eat the humble pie…

Same could be said about the Smolensk crash, this also was a typical man-made disaster. Responsibility for it is collective and many Polish national shortcomings, brought together, contributed to the fatal accident. The list can be long: overwhelming disorganisation in prime minister’s and late president’s offices, commonly tolerated laxity in following procedures, acting on reprehensible faith that “we’ll somehow make it” (jakoś to będzie, uda się), determination to carry on, despite dangerous conditions, cutting corners (bylejakość), bravura, focus on end heedless of safety procedures. Several irregularities were found in the disbanded 36th regiment of Polish military aviation (inadequate training resulting e.g. in reading the wrong altitude meter), in prime minister’s office (responsibility for organising such visits rests with them). Media, for sake of customary refraining from speaking badly about the departed, seldom mention total chaos in the president Kaczyński’s office, but this was also the case. Same can be said about Russian airport in Smolensk, run-down, lacking fixed equipment necessary to service takeoffs and touchdowns (such was moved there for prime minister’s Tusk visit 3 days earlier and taken away immediately), but I ultimately would blame the Polish organisers who did not bother to choose a safer, properly equipped airport.

I am looking forward to seeing the film. Little in its content is likely to surprise me – newspapers in Poland have written long reviews and summaries of it. I am more curious of social potential outcry regarding the account of events depicted in the film. The documentary is not going to change anything. Those who believe this was an assassination contrived by enemies of the most outstanding statesman in the history of Poland will not be convinced this was a tragic aftermath of multitude of human errors, those who put credence into official parliamentary report, will find in it nothing new; nevertheless it is worth spending two hours in front of the TV screen.

The worst human trait

I was taking pleasure in watching the sun going down today and out of the blue… it dawned on me. Many times I was wondering what the worst, the most irritating trait was and now I’m sure. What makes my hackles rise the most is UNRELIABILITY.

I can put up with many shortcomings. Not everyone has a gift of the gab, not everyone’s clever, not everyone’s creative, even-tempered, has a sense of humour etc. We have no influence on some of our traits, we are born with them, all we can do is to work on them, raise the bar for ourselves. Some traits are inborn, but others can be fully shaped. Two best examples are a penchant to depart from the truth and the unreliability. For ample reasons, people are inclined to find justifications and excuses for lying, in this respect I can turn a blind eye on this, since I can’t swear I am always truthful, I’m just human and oddly enough, I would find it easier to forgive a lie than a broken promise.

I’ve already met a few people, who’ll go down in my memory as totally undependable. Do you know what I mean? How many times has somebody told you they’d do something and they didn’t? I can’t stand repeating those promises “next time for sure I’ll do it”, “I promise to do it”. I feel treated like a downright idiot when I hear such hollow words for tenth time, because I know they will go down on their promise. They’ve done so several times, why should it be any different this time – I ask myself. In this very respect I raised the bar very high for myself. Most people who’ve cooperated with me would tell you they’d sooner forget about a promise I made, then I would. If I can’t do something, or can’t meet the deadline I let others know in advance, apologise, explain why and offer to do what I am supposed to do as soon as possible. I feel dirty bound to do so, cause if somebody trusts me they have a right to rely on me and expect me to meet my promises.

In my books, if you want be successful and appraised, you should set some standard for yourself, in my hierarchy I put reliability on the top. It’s in a way easier – whether I’m dependable or not depends only on me, not on my skills, flexibility, intelligence or features.

The unreliability is a cancer that infect contemporary societies, from its top (politicians who promise a lot before elections) down to families, companies, communities. “I’ll do it”, “I promise to do it”, “I can assure I’ll finish it off”, “For sure you’ll get it”. And more and more often I don’t believe, I was taught not to believe.

Mentality

Polish mentality is one of those things which quite frequently bewilder foreigner who come, settle down, or get settled here.
By and large, there are some national traits which differentiate us from other nations.

Griping – an average Pole has to gripe about everything – spanning politicians, work, neighbours, family, bureaucracy, etc. The older, the less educated, the less well-travelled, the poorer, the more they complain.

Criticism – but lack of constructive criticism, it’s easy to put somebody down, slate somebody’s ideas, tell something is ugly. Even it’s easy to say “I’d do it better”. Easier said than done, almost everybody is all mouth better, but hardly anyone can lay out alternative proposal or just pull up socks and buckle down to work…

Relativism – if another driver cuts in on me, he’s a “one on the beach”. If I violate the right of way it must be somehow justifiable. He’s not allowed, in my case there must be some reasons behind it. Some time ago I’ve read a study which gave an excellent explanation of the approach of the trade unionist picketing in front of prime minister’s office. The didn’t scream out “thieves” because they were outraged at policy of “stealing away” national property or at the high remuneration of factory’s director. They held it against them that someone else was given that golden opportunity. In their shoes they’d steal even more without restraint, but they wondered why it hadn’t fallen to them…

Definitely, relativism is our worst trait, I notice it every day and keep an eye on my behaviour not to succumb to the temptation of justifying my deeds in the “relativistic” way.

Written on the spur of the moment. Maybe it’s not fully true, maybe I hurt somebody, maybe it was necessary? Maybe something should be added to that list?