Why We Fight and Why We Give Up

I clicked on my high school on Facebook and up came the faces of a couple dozen men that I knew quite well thirteen years ago. Some looked okay, but for the most part, they had gotten fat. How fat is fat? Fat enough that a square inch photo of them showed it. Most of them looked like they gained at least forty pounds since I knew them in high school.

Yeah, people like to talk about genetics and metabolism and perhaps that can explain why some get a little chubby while others stay thin. Getting fat, though, is something else. One has to pretty much not watch a thing they eat and stop exercising all together to get fat. One has to really give up.

At first glance, why we exercise is a fairly easy question to answer. It’s a little bit of vanity, it’s a little bit of health and it’s a little bit of social pressure. People want to look attractive as it helps one socially, romantically and even in the working world. People want to live longer and be nimble. Also, if your peers like doing something, you tend to do it to.

And at first glance, giving up is a harder question. Why did they stop caring about their health? Did they get married and decide to let themselves go? Did their friends and mates stop as well? Do they actually care, but just don’t have the time? It’s hard to believe that anyone would stop caring about their health completely or not care if their mate found them attractive. Also, no matter how busy someone is, everyone has some free time.

It is clear that giving up is not just losing the desire. Given the choice, everyone would choose to be thin and athletic. But, given the choice, I would love to be fluent in French, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to put in all the work to become fluent in French. Learning French is really hard and gives me little benefit, so I’m not going to put in any effort. I’ve given up on learning French.

Everyone has a rough cost-benefit formula in their head on every other choice as well, including exercise. People that give up realize it’s not worth it.

In fact, giving up is usually the logical choice for most things. Nearly all of us will never be great musicians or artists or athletes or intellectuals. Yet, we continue to do these activities and try to self-improve. Exercise isn’t really worth it either. One’s unfit body isn’t usually that much worse than one’s fit body. One could easily choose to pair off with a slightly less attractive mate who will probably make one just as happy, if not more. And trading an hour of exercise for a few seconds of extended life is pretty illogical to start with. Given the cost and benefit, more people should be giving up.

So, if giving up is so logical, why do some actually exercise or do any activity where one only has the chance at mediocrity? Some would say “for fun,” but most hobbies are actually hard work. The real reason why people fight is probably quite simple, circular and quixotic. Society admires the fighter in the hopeless fight and it comforts us to believe we are fighters. The inevitability of life is depressing and, thus, the illogic of fighting is inspiring. People want to be fighters so they fight.

The Squeaky Wheel in the Bureaucracy

We are confronted with complaints and problems every day. For the most part, though, we ignore them and with good reason. Sometimes the problem is a fluke caused by the randomness of life. Sometimes the problem is exaggerated by a frustrated and venting individual. Sometimes the problem is already being addressed and it’ll just go away.

But, every now and then a problem is real and warrants our attention. We usually determine that a problem is real when the problem repeatedly affects us. After that, we must address it. Hit traffic at 8:30 on a given road once, it’s a bad day. Hit it repeatedly and one has to come up with a new travel plan.

With bureaucracy, though, often problems need to be addressed by a number of individuals in a chain of command. This results in only severe problems being addressed.

For instance, say one’s chain of command is 4 people. The lowest man on the totem pole runs into a problem. He ignores it twice, but after a third time, he reports it to his supervisor. Now that has become a single problem for the supervisor. He ignores it twice, but after a third time, he reports it to his supervisor. Of course, for him to hear the problem three times, the lowest man must experience it 9 times. The supervisor’s supervisor also needs to hear it 3 times in order to report it to the top of the totem. The top man has to hear 3 times to take action. The poor lowest man has now experienced the problem 81 times and has annoyed his manager 27 times about it. Their relationship probably isn’t great.

This bureaucracy does have some advantages. It probably leads to resources being used to address the worst problems first. Also, the problems that are addressed are in all probability actual problems. So, in systems like, say, the judicial system (despite the numerous stories to the contrary), this means that police are probably arresting multiple offenders and that multiple offenders are going to jail.

On the other hand, unique, complicated and nuanced issues are unlikely to ever be solved or treated fairly as someone in the bureaucratic line will filter them out. Only actions that occur numerously and that can be explained quickly and concisely will ever be addressed. The squeaky wheel does get the grease eventually, but only long after it has annoyed everyone near it greatly.