
TED Talk: A kinder, gentler philosophy of success - qeek
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_philosophy_of_success.html
======
ajaypopat
I've come to similar personal conclusions about what success means to me
(although the speaker articulated it better I possibly could have).

The idea that you should define your success by what you are willing to
lose/give up on resonated strongly with me. A few years back, I gave up a much
better paying job and 'better' career prospects in the US after an Ivy League
education, to move back home and stay closer to my dad (who'd just suffered a
catastrophic stroke). While I might not be considered super successful in the
popular sense, I've redefined the meaning of success for myself. I've realized
I value relationships over traditional measures of success and I am willing to
lose some of the latter to get more of the former.

Incidentally, this realization has been strangely liberating. I'm completely
at ease at college reunions, even when I get the odd snicker from classmates
who are more 'successful'.

------
butterfi
Thanks to whoever posted this! I've been agonizing over my career for years
and have only just started to realize the truth (and beauty) in what he's
saying.

~~~
wyw
I'd like to second that. Unfortunately we can only vote once. But this talk is
now tied with Jill Bolte Taylor's as my favorite Ted talk. Thanks for posting.

~~~
concretecode
Interesting. I'd tie de Botton's with Liz Gilbert's talk
(<http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html>) for first.

For those that haven't seen it, it's really worth your time. Her speech skims
across the surface of several ideas, and in the last few minutes comes
together into an elegant and cohesive whole. I wish I could speak like that.

------
Emore
I love this kind of TED talks.

One of Alain's main arguments was that the "kinder, gentler" philosophy of
success should partly be based on the negative implications of meritocracy,
i.e. "if you are at the bottom, you deserve to be there and thus you're a
looser". But to meritocracy's defense -- isn't it more fair to say that "if
you are at the bottom, you can with an effort pull yourself out of there"? And
thus "merit" a better position in the social hierarchy?

For me, once anyone at the bottom make the slightest effort to rise, they are
instantly rising in social hierarchy. Thus, it's all up to themselves, and
it's all based on a choice. Make a decision, and merit follows.

I'm not sure what I want to say with this argument. But somehow, the criticism
forwards meritocracy seemed a little shallow in the talk.

~~~
davidw
One distinction that is useful is looking at things in absolute terms or in
terms of rankings. In a ranking system, someone is always going to come out
the winner, and someone on the bottom. At the Tour de France, someone wins, a
bunch of other guys don't, and someone comes in last, even though they are all
extremely talented and fast cyclists. In business, someone might make the most
money, but most people doing good work create value for society, and increase
total wealth, without it necessarily being at the cost of someone else.

In other words, ranking systems and contests are zero sum games, whereas
plenty of other things are not.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
status is a zero sum game, while the economy is not. one can't generally
create status without lowering the status of those around you, the same is not
true for wealth.

~~~
DenisM
Is that realy so? Can we create system where person A is realy good at X, and
person B is really good at Y, and thus both are respected (and respecting each
other)?

In other words, can we make satuts into a partially-ordered set?

~~~
nazgulnarsil
not as long as demand for attractive women far outpaces supply.

------
wallflower
"A lot of times our ideas of what it is like to live successfully are not our
own. If you're a man, your father. If you're a woman, your mother.. We are
highly open to suggestion. We should be truly the authors of our own
ambitions. It is bad enough to not get what you want but even worse to find
out at the end of the journey that what you got is not what you wanted."

"That problem is envy. If there is one dominant emotion in modern society -
that is envy. And it's linked to the spirit of equality. We don't envy the
Queen of England...because we can't relate to her... And when you can't relate
to somebody, you don't envy them. The closer two people are in age, in
background, in the process of identification, the more there is a danger of
envy... Which is why you should never go to the same school but.. The problem
of modern society is it turns the whole world into a school - everybody is
wearing jeans and the same and yet they're not."

"One of the reasons we fear failure... is the judgment and ridicule of others.
The number one organ of ridicule is the newspaper... they have failed and they
are described as losers."

"We tend to worship ourselves. Our heroes are human heroes. Most other
societies have had at that center something that is transcendent. A God, a
spirit, a natural force, the universe"

-Alian de Botton

------
brown9-2
Really liked this.

For anyone who has read Alain de Botton: Could you recommend some of his
books? I'm really interested in checking out his work after watching this.

~~~
wyw
This talk is derived from his book "Status Anxiety" as is the documentary of
the same name which is available on Youtube in low quality:

<http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=336D8AE0334C5C91>

~~~
tome
I learned a huge amount from reading this book. I bought it second hand for
perhaps 3 pounds. If it had cost 100 pounds it would still have been worth it
for the gems I got out of it!

------
spitfire
Tyler Brulé of Monocle did an interview with Alain covering his recent book.
Typical of Tyler it isn't the usual puff piece but he actually pokes for real
substance.

[http://www.monocle.com/sections/culture/Web-
Articles/Alain-d...](http://www.monocle.com/sections/culture/Web-
Articles/Alain-de-Botton/)

------
oneplusone
Amazing talk.

