Love, Work and the Process of Elimination
A couple of blogs ago, I wrote some about the two major foci of our lives- love and work. I said they are the ubiquitous and elusive keys to happiness that are able to affect our lives more than anything else. I realized, though, that perhaps the dilettante’s way of life is a little different from most people’s. “The Interview” (see September 14th) is actually never pursued by many.
The dilettante is a wanderlust that searches and searches for happiness. He or she will switch jobs and switch loves trying to find the best one. Eventually, I imagine, the dilettante tires and settles on the least bad job and the least bad mate. Experience from testing waters has shown the dilettante that things could be worse and that is (somewhat) satisfying. Something close to contentment is achieved through a process of elimination.
There is an opposite of the dilettante is what I refer to as a “barnacle”. The barnacle will stick to something that comes along, usually the first tolerable thing, and just be content. They pity the dilettante who is never content and who must endure the painful “Interview”. There is no need for a process of elimination. The barnacle is either lazy or delusional or perhaps both. Though, they convince themselves that they are just really lucky:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28554
Of course, many people would say there is a third the way. There are people that believe in absolute satisfaction in employment and love. You’ll meet these jackasses sometimes. They say they “love” their job or they speak of their mate as a “soul mate”. This concept often keeps a dilettante searching or convinces a delusional barnacle to stay put. It is hogwash, though. As science class has taught us, absolute anything is impossible (see the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics and psychology tells us that human wants keep us desiring more and more.
Logically, though, we should assume that there is a job or person that is better than the one we have. Most of, though, eventually become monogamous and settle on a career. Why the change? Why stop the hunt? Time, effort and risk become factors. Say you take the LSAT and get a 175. Do you risk taking the test again? You could score higher or lower. At some point, things become “good enough”. For the dilettante, it is after exhaustion. For the barnacle, it is immediate.
The dilettante is a wanderlust that searches and searches for happiness. He or she will switch jobs and switch loves trying to find the best one. Eventually, I imagine, the dilettante tires and settles on the least bad job and the least bad mate. Experience from testing waters has shown the dilettante that things could be worse and that is (somewhat) satisfying. Something close to contentment is achieved through a process of elimination.
There is an opposite of the dilettante is what I refer to as a “barnacle”. The barnacle will stick to something that comes along, usually the first tolerable thing, and just be content. They pity the dilettante who is never content and who must endure the painful “Interview”. There is no need for a process of elimination. The barnacle is either lazy or delusional or perhaps both. Though, they convince themselves that they are just really lucky:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28554
Of course, many people would say there is a third the way. There are people that believe in absolute satisfaction in employment and love. You’ll meet these jackasses sometimes. They say they “love” their job or they speak of their mate as a “soul mate”. This concept often keeps a dilettante searching or convinces a delusional barnacle to stay put. It is hogwash, though. As science class has taught us, absolute anything is impossible (see the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics and psychology tells us that human wants keep us desiring more and more.
Logically, though, we should assume that there is a job or person that is better than the one we have. Most of, though, eventually become monogamous and settle on a career. Why the change? Why stop the hunt? Time, effort and risk become factors. Say you take the LSAT and get a 175. Do you risk taking the test again? You could score higher or lower. At some point, things become “good enough”. For the dilettante, it is after exhaustion. For the barnacle, it is immediate.
posted by American Dilettante at
4:03 PM
2 Comments:
I took the GRE's twice, about 6 years apart.
Got the exact, total score, the second time. Scored higher on my quant the second time, because in my second round, I emphasized it, only to do worse on the verbal.
By
Bulworth, at 2:32 PM
I read this whole column and not one poop joke. I mean, process of elimination, come on. Throw me a frickin' bone here.
The American Dilettante sees things through a glass too starkly sometimes, I think. Some of the barnacles may just have a clear idea of what they want while the dilettantes don't or change it after they find what they were mistakenly looking for. The dilettantes may be too focused on applying ordinal values to everything which leads to their worrying about finding something better, while the barnacles could be too focused on the right fit. As a dilettante, the AD may be letting that blinder limit his analysis.
By
The Rogue Progressive, at 6:36 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home