Venting The winner wins at everything, and the losers have to lose it all.

[antorrodel_7327]

One would think that success in human population is at least somewhat uniformly distributed, but my lived experiences have been otherwise. The socially savvy, attractive and charismatic people have everything in life -- friends, love, and more importantly, good jobs as well. Because despite what most might think, success in the professional world also depends on how you sell and present yourself to other people; and the fluent talker with a nice face and great social skills will inevitably be perceived as being more capable than an ugly, stuttering and socially inept person. The latter always has to do a lot more in order to compensate. It's been my experience that the former will recieve more employment opportunities, will have more people drawn to them, and so on.

The loser will likely never experience genuine love, will never feel socially validated, and, if this were not enough, is also more likely to fail in their professional career, which in turn will drive even more people away from the loser. It's a negative loop, which will keep making the loser more and more undesirable over time. The winner, on the other hand, keeps receiving validation of all kinds (social, romantic, and even professional) from people around, and therefore is motivated to put in more work, and therefore succeeds and becomes more desirable over time.

There is no way for the loser to win. The human society is setup in a way as to make the socially inept, ugly and awkward people suffer at all instances of life.

Or, put another way, the only "solution" for the loser is to accept life for what it is; scrape through the remaining days of their life without much hope and put just as much effort as is required to stay alive; drink, smoke and do whatever makes them feel good in the moment; and thank God everyday for having created such a thing as death.

 

[Hvergelmir]

the only "solution" for the loser is to accept life for what it is

The thing is that you often can't do big leaps in your 'success level' (lacking better terms). You can however change your trajectory, and it's often exponential.
To reach high levels you must invest in things promoting further growth.

While I acknowledge peoples right to surrender, I think it's a bad idea to declare it ideologically superior.
While most people maintain a steady trajectory, there are also quite a few who veer off.

 

[whiskers]

Winners are not made, they're born.

 

[antorrodel_7327]

The thing is that you often can't do big leaps in your 'success level' (lacking better terms). You can however change your trajectory, and it's often exponential.
To reach high levels you must invest in things promoting further growth.

While I acknowledge peoples right to surrender, I think it's a bad idea to declare it ideologically superior.
While most people maintain a steady trajectory, there are also quite a few who veer off.

I see your point. I'll admit that my original post sounded way more "doomery" and negative than what I had intended it to be. I apologize. I was not in the best state of mind while writing it.

However, my point -- admittedly very poorly phrased -- was that for the aforementioned "unlucky" people, it's best to let go of all hope because hope will serve only as a means of making them more vulnerable and deepening their pain. I think I was trying to say that it's best to surrender hopes, but not necessarily all the efforts. One should try to put the bare minimum of efforts -- whatever is necessary to survive, and leave evrything else to fate.

Now, it is certainly true that life may, sometimes, turn around itself in unexplainably pleasant ways, but being hopeful about this faint prospect is, perhaps, as foolish as being hopeful about winning a lucky draw. So, a hopeless person, simply by virtue of being hopeless and "surrendering", isn't necessarily reducing their already bleak chances of "success" . . . it's just that they aren't fooling themselves into believing that such a rare event might actually happen.

 

[NewtBoy]

The thing is that you often can't do big leaps in your 'success level' (lacking better terms). You can however change your trajectory, and it's often exponential.
To reach high levels you must invest in things promoting further growth.

While I acknowledge peoples right to surrender, I think it's a bad idea to declare it ideologically superior.
While most people maintain a steady trajectory, there are also quite a few who veer off.

I guess that's fair, but how many people are really able to make these kinds of exponential improvements with any kind of longevity? From an anecdotal standpoint I certainly don't see people making such dramatic positive changes in their lifestyle. I don't think op is speaking to the ideological superiority of surrender, but rather it's inevitability for most.

 

[Hvergelmir]

but how many people are really able to make these kinds of exponential improvements with any kind of longevity?

Frankly it's not that rare. The starting point is often education or employment, enabling freedom, security, and better opportunities. This then feeds into itself, while bleeding over to other areas of life.
I've seen losers - failed middle aged people from unfortunate backgrounds do this several times. This shouldn't be discouraged!

Ideally you're born with excellent circumstances, excellent genetic predispositions, work hard, and invest in the future. That's how the very top is usually reached, but moderate success is within reach for most people.
Fairness is irrelevant when dealing with a single situation. It's a meta-comparison with other situations.

One should try to put the bare minimum of efforts -- whatever is necessary to survive, and leave evrything else to fate.

If you're content with mere survival this is perfectly viable - a success in it's own right.
It's important to note, that it's not for everyone, though. People are not wrong to have higher ambitions, and it's sad to see such people discouraged.

 

[NewtBoy]

Frankly it's not that rare. The starting point is often education or employment, enabling freedom, security, and better opportunities. This then feeds into itself, while bleeding over to other areas of life.
I've seen losers - failed middle aged people from unfortunate backgrounds do this several times. This shouldn't be discouraged!

Ideally you're born with excellent circumstances, excellent genetic predispositions, work hard, and invest in the future. That's how the very top is usually reached, but moderate success is within reach for most people.
Fairness is irrelevant when dealing with a single situation. It's a meta-comparison with other situations.

If you're content with mere survival this is perfectly viable - a success in it's own right.
It's important to note, that it's not for everyone, though. People are not wrong to have higher ambitions, and it's sad to see such people discouraged.

I'm interested in the statistics on the rate of middle-aged people suddenly deciding to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (as well as the supposed positive impact on their mental health and happiness) or whether we're just swapping anecdotes.

However, I don't think this is meant to discourage hopeful and motivated people, or put them down as little more than happy-go-lucky ideologues. I think your outlook lacks nuance, and banks very heavily on meritocracy, and the idea that simply trying to be successful will get you there. I'm not a fan of this for many reasons, mainly because of what it implies about the disenfranchised and unsuccessful.

In addition to this, education, employment, and financial security certainly don't necessarily lead to better mental health outcomes for the individual. I don't think it's controversial to say that "successful" people are often miserable. I think I'd consider myself successful by your own metrics and well… here I am.

This brings into question the idea of "moderate success". This is highly contextual. What substantiates your suggestion that it's within reach for most people? What about those more fortunate people you mentioned? Is their version of moderate success different than a "normal" person's?

I'm sorry if I come off as a bit combative, but I think your analysis of these situations is very vibes-based and a bit condescending if we're being honest.

 

[Sunü (素女)]

One would think that success in human population is at least somewhat uniformly distributed, but my lived experiences have been otherwise. The socially savvy, attractive and charismatic people have everything in life -- friends, love, and more importantly, good jobs as well. Because despite what most might think, success in the professional world also depends on how you sell and present yourself to other people; and the fluent talker with a nice face and great social skills will inevitably be perceived as being more capable than an ugly, stuttering and socially inept person. The latter always has to do a lot more in order to compensate. It's been my experience that the former will recieve more employment opportunities, will have more people drawn to them, and so on.

The loser will likely never experience genuine love, will never feel socially validated, and, if this were not enough, is also more likely to fail in their professional career, which in turn will drive even more people away from the loser. It's a negative loop, which will keep making the loser more and more undesirable over time. The winner, on the other hand, keeps receiving validation of all kinds (social, romantic, and even professional) from people around, and therefore is motivated to put in more work, and therefore succeeds and becomes more desirable over time.

There is no way for the loser to win. The human society is setup in a way as to make the socially inept, ugly and awkward people suffer at all instances of life.

Or, put another way, the only "solution" for the loser is to accept life for what it is; scrape through the remaining days of their life without much hope and put just as much effort as is required to stay alive; drink, smoke and do whatever makes them feel good in the moment; and thank God everyday for having created such a thing as death.

You're somewhat not wrong. There are traits that people will favor more, and often they will pick whatever appeals to them most: this is the positive loop for the "winners". While I believe the "loser's" (people who don't exhibit favorable traits) negative feedback loop exists, I'd want to point out that their belief and outlook as a loser would multiply the suffering and negativity of the feedback gotten from other people. Terming people as "winners" and "losers" has misleading connotations, while the effects might be subtle, I think they can be quite harmful when unaware.

Other than that, when a loser realizes they can't win and feels that they've reached a ceiling to what they can do, "giving up" on it does seem justifiable. Whether they persist in their hope or not, is wholly up to them. But in the case of them losing hope, it'd be much better to start a new hope on a new success rather than stay hopeless. I'm suggesting to renounce valuing what people call success and then redefining it to something more approachable, tolerable. High status, wealth, love are traded in for whatever value a person appreciates. When you're tired with society's rat race, just create your own and start anew there.

I should put out a disclaimer about how I have not even started working yet. But I'm quite aware of how unfit I'll be when I do enter the workforce: about how much I procrastinate and barely interact with others. My plan (like the suggestion above): I want to do the minimum to survive, so i could change my focus elsewhere. I'd want to pursue finding more insights into the world, for example. I'd want to cultivate this hope because the alternatives are degrading to me.

 

[Haematemesis]

mors vincit omnia, death conquers all
there are no permanent winners nor losers

 

[Hvergelmir]

I'm interested in the statistics on the rate of middle-aged people suddenly deciding to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (as well as the supposed positive impact on their mental health and happiness) or whether we're just swapping anecdotes.

Like I wrote in my initial post it's rare that sudden leaps are possible. Changes are subtle and gradual. Significant gains are mostly made by nudging the trajectory many times, creating an exponential.

I don't have think you'll find numbers, but quite regularly people from the near-bottom manage to go on to live pretty average lives, which they are proud about and find meaningful.

the idea that simply trying to be successful will get you there.

This idea is indeed naive. Trying is however a strict prerequisite for succeeding.
Surrender ought to be a reserve strategy, not the default.

In addition to this, education, employment, and financial security certainly don't necessarily lead to better mental health outcomes

It was simply examples. They are indeed often very good starting points, but it depends on the individual and the kind of health issue.
Attending therapy, joining a hobby group or adopting a faith are other examples. The key is to have some semblance of success, that feeds into itself, opening up opportunities.

I don't think it's controversial to say that "successful" people are often miserable.

It's not controversial, but it's using "successful" to describe one thing, and "miserable" another.
Misery is not a success. A miserable life is not a success, even though it may include things that in isolation may be very successful.

What substantiates your suggestion that it's within reach for most people? What about those more fortunate people you mentioned? Is their version of moderate success different than a "normal" person's?

With moderate success, I'm referring to anything more successful than failure. Most people do not consider themselves complete failures. People trying, tend to get better results than those don't.
I think success in terms of life revolves around rather basic needs. I don't think those are fundamentally different between "normal" people or any other group. How those needs can be fulfilled does however vary a lot depending on who you are and where you are.

I think your analysis of these situations is very vibes-based and a bit condescending if we're being honest.

I'm probably a bit condescending, if not openly hostile to the ideology of defeatism. I've just seen too much damage stem from it.
I respect anyone's right to surrender before a set of circumstances. One must be allowed to fail, and one must not be forced to continue. (In fact any unlikely success is usually preceded by multiple failures.)

Defeatism does however declare any attempt at success misguided and futile, and any realized success as unfair. In extension this calls for the abolishment of success altogether.
In practice it creates circles where success is actively discouraged in favor of shared suffering. It isolates people in environments without opportunity or hope.