Is life a gamble? See, I'm an accountant, and I've been running some numbers in my head. I think it kind of is. Not in the typical gambling way or anything, but, yes, a gamble. Let me explain:
I've been driving around listening to the radio. One day I was listening to a song about living life. You know the type of song, "I'm not going to live forever, so I'm goind to do whatever I want to do right now!" And it is implied that "whatever I want" is - well, whatever! Drugs, sex, spending money like it's going out of style...
Now, I switched over to the Christian radio station, and they had the same song on! Only instead, it went, "I'm not going to live forever, so I'm going to love people and help people and draw close to God." I'm not going to lie - I feel this is a more appropriate interpretation of life. But let's run the numbers.
Let's say you choose song #1. You do whatever you want. Will this make you happy? I don't know - I suppose there are a few multi-millionaires out there who take the "live for today" approach and enjoy it. But for the average person - and even the average multi-millionaire - it's just not going to work. You will be lonely. You will be a mess - drugs and alchohol will require increasingly stronger doeses to make you happy. And who knows what "free love" will get you - kids you aren't prepared to take care of? Disease? Or just a plain old broken heart? The prognosis doesn't look good.
Add to that the Christian concept summarized in the TobyMac song, "I don't want to gain the whole world and lose my soul!" Even if you are one of the select few who can live an entirely self-centered life and be happy still, will you gain heaven? Or will you spend 70-100 happy years on earth only to spend eternity in a much less happy place.
We have to remember that what we experience here is not the best of all possible worlds. There is hope for something better, and that to waste our life for temporary gain is, well...foolish.
So then there's song #2. According to those who live by Song #1, the Song #2 livers are missing out on a lot of fun. They are probably not as rich - and if they are, they spend a lot of money helping people. Their fun is innocent. They always seem to be putting off pleasure because it's "wrong" (not participating in drugs or sex outside of marriage).
But does it pay off? In my life I see a lot of Song #2 working well - I mean, people who settle down and live a good life (even if they are not specifically Christians, but want to be good people) tend to do well. They have families who love them. They are not short on money (not having pawned their last possession for a new high). They don't get unwanted diseases.
But then, there are those who follow Song #2 and still have rotten lives. I mean, just because you are a good person and try to help people, just because you are a Christian, does not guarantee you a life of bliss. All you can do is do the best with what you have and live strong in your faith and hope that you will go to a better place in 70-100 years.
This is why it is a gamble. I think statistically Song #2 pays off - you have a chance of being happy in this world and the next!
And yet, faith seems to be a gamble for some people anyway. If you live by Song #1 - whether you are happy or not - and someone tells you to change your life because you may not go to heaven? What kind of argument is that? Isn't it just easier to believe that there is no God and continue on in your ways? And if you do believe, won't that just turn you off? People forget about forgiveness and redemption.
But to talk about the faith gamble is in essence to determine how to win at the gamble of life.
If there is no God, then the way to win the life lottery is to be one of the truly happy Song #1-ers. You can be a fairly happy Song #2-er. But like anything, it's all about risk and reward - you can lead a stable life or risk everything on the chance that you might be happy following Song #1. It doesn't matter which song you follow in the long run, though - just pick a song to follow because you only have 70-100 years.
But if there is a God, then Song #2 is definately the key to winning the lottery. And unlike Song #1, everyone who sings song #2 wins! Suddenly the risk is gone! You may be a little unhappy in this life, but you will be happy in eternity.
So what's the lesson? Well, after running the numbers (I know I'm a little biased) I think that Song #2 is the best way to live - both if you consider God or pretend He doesn't exist. So the question then becomes, why do so many people live Song #1? Why isn't the world a better place if the smart thing to do is to love each other, love God, and help each other out?
Other than the cliche, "Sin" answer, I can't tell you. Perhaps it is because life is such a gamble. Perhaps there are so many Song #1 people out there trying to actually be happy, that being a Song #2 person becomes harder and harder to do.
And yet, I speak of the lottery. I truly don't know of anyone who has been able to lead a completely selfish life and still be happy. I honestly don't know if it has happened - I just spoke of it because I thought statistically it might have. You don't really find any religion in the world that speaks of gaining inner peace through selfish acts. There is wisdom in that!
If everyone just lived out the faith they did beleive, and if people stopped trying to squash each other in pursuit of winning Life's Lottery, then the world would be a better place. Living Song #2 wouldn't seem like sacrificing anything at all, because in loving one another, the whole world could be gained! And people could find peace and happiness both in this life and the life to come.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Evolution of Good
Philosophy is never far from me. I feel it has been repressed by busyness recently, as have my posts. However, just because I have no time to discuss or write about my thoughts, does not mean I am not having them. As of late, I have been thinking of morality.
I find it interesting how morality changes and molds. We, as westerners, are used to the Judeo Christian sense of morality. We have "The Law." And it guides our own laws. Some moral laws are not governmental laws, and yet, they are known. When Jesus came, he did not institute, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." But he did bring it up, mention it, live it out in his own life, and then command us to do the same.
Somehow we didn't. This is what I find interesting. If you read the Bible, certain practices common to the times had become repugnant to the Jews, even in the era before Christ. I speak mostly of Human Sacrifice, but also of the concept of temple prostitutes. The linking of murder and prostitution to religion was a double offense, for any pagan practices were forbidden by the Jewish people as a whole.
When Christianity took over the Western world, a new order of laws and morality did not spring up. If anything, some of the old morality held its ground - war for power's sake, greed, prejudice, injustice. Pagan rituals went away, but to our 21st Century eyes, the world was still a Dark place.
Which is why I find it fascinating the strides that morality has taken in only the last two hundred years or so! The American concept - that "all men are created equal" set something new into motion. And yet, it was a Christian idea - to love each other means to treat each other with respect.
Other improvements that our Western society has seen has been the abolishment of slavery, women's rights, and the end of state sanctioned (and even societal) prejudice based on race.
All these changes seem, in my eyes (which may have been preconditioned by the society that made the changes mind you) to be completely fitting and wholesome. Part of the Christian ideal.
And yet, historically speaking, I see how hard it was for some of these ideals to come about. I hold certain ideas about sin - what is right and what is wrong. I have ideas about what is acceptable and is not. What is criminal and is humane. What is something I can participate in, and something I should fight against.
But the lessons of history teach me that my morality may be shaken. The improvements in morality I have observed seemed to tumble exponentially on top of each other, once put in place. And if the growth continues, I see a time where my morality will be outpaced. If you will - my morals will be old fashioned, cease to be morals, and instead will be backward, prejudiced thoughts.
All the changing and "growing" in morality makes me wonder how good and bad can really change. I am a Christian. The people who lived two, three, four hundred years ago were Christians. How did they reconcile the attrocities they committed to their faith? Did they even try, or were they just pretending? If morality of a society can change, then is the morality that I am dead certain exists, the morality that society may change for me, wrong?
There are certain universal truths to morality that span the boundaries of culture and religion. Murder. Wrong. But human sacrifice - has been known to be okay. The difference? Stealing. Wrong. But some will argue that those who are starving to death need what they take. Adultery. Wrong. But in our society new propoganda arises - "Some people made a mistake in marriage. Why should they be punished for their mistake with the shackles of fidelity?"
Am I glad that we had moral progress in the last few centuries? Of course! I hope that, even if I had lived in those cultures, I would have stood as a minority in my charity. But I can never be certain that I would have.
What I have been discovering more and more recently is that the world is not black and white: it is grey. I think I knew that growing up. However, even though the world is grey, people can, and should be black and white. What I mean is that, any action can be viewed as moral or immoral. Good or bad. A sin or not. However, as people, we don't get the right to examine the motives (unless a person is on trial) and determine if there was more good or more bad behind the action. Only God can do that.
But when we give into grey, then we allow ourselves to slip from white to black. If we hold on to white, we may be wrong, but at least it is a well-intentioned wrong. While grey may be well intentioned, it is losing its footing and sliding down a slope where it grows blacker and blacker. It's hard to be black and white - or white to use my analogy. And yet, I believe it's necessary.
So what's this white I speak of? What is the defined morality? Well, I would say the tenets of the Christian faith. Even these people argue over and try to find the grey in. The answer, I believe, is white, but even our best attempts to be white end up a little off-white, if you will. There will be no perfection on earth. But even so, we should not deliberately go around trying to find black to mix into our off-white to turn it grey.
I find it interesting how morality changes and molds. We, as westerners, are used to the Judeo Christian sense of morality. We have "The Law." And it guides our own laws. Some moral laws are not governmental laws, and yet, they are known. When Jesus came, he did not institute, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." But he did bring it up, mention it, live it out in his own life, and then command us to do the same.
Somehow we didn't. This is what I find interesting. If you read the Bible, certain practices common to the times had become repugnant to the Jews, even in the era before Christ. I speak mostly of Human Sacrifice, but also of the concept of temple prostitutes. The linking of murder and prostitution to religion was a double offense, for any pagan practices were forbidden by the Jewish people as a whole.
When Christianity took over the Western world, a new order of laws and morality did not spring up. If anything, some of the old morality held its ground - war for power's sake, greed, prejudice, injustice. Pagan rituals went away, but to our 21st Century eyes, the world was still a Dark place.
Which is why I find it fascinating the strides that morality has taken in only the last two hundred years or so! The American concept - that "all men are created equal" set something new into motion. And yet, it was a Christian idea - to love each other means to treat each other with respect.
Other improvements that our Western society has seen has been the abolishment of slavery, women's rights, and the end of state sanctioned (and even societal) prejudice based on race.
All these changes seem, in my eyes (which may have been preconditioned by the society that made the changes mind you) to be completely fitting and wholesome. Part of the Christian ideal.
And yet, historically speaking, I see how hard it was for some of these ideals to come about. I hold certain ideas about sin - what is right and what is wrong. I have ideas about what is acceptable and is not. What is criminal and is humane. What is something I can participate in, and something I should fight against.
But the lessons of history teach me that my morality may be shaken. The improvements in morality I have observed seemed to tumble exponentially on top of each other, once put in place. And if the growth continues, I see a time where my morality will be outpaced. If you will - my morals will be old fashioned, cease to be morals, and instead will be backward, prejudiced thoughts.
All the changing and "growing" in morality makes me wonder how good and bad can really change. I am a Christian. The people who lived two, three, four hundred years ago were Christians. How did they reconcile the attrocities they committed to their faith? Did they even try, or were they just pretending? If morality of a society can change, then is the morality that I am dead certain exists, the morality that society may change for me, wrong?
There are certain universal truths to morality that span the boundaries of culture and religion. Murder. Wrong. But human sacrifice - has been known to be okay. The difference? Stealing. Wrong. But some will argue that those who are starving to death need what they take. Adultery. Wrong. But in our society new propoganda arises - "Some people made a mistake in marriage. Why should they be punished for their mistake with the shackles of fidelity?"
Am I glad that we had moral progress in the last few centuries? Of course! I hope that, even if I had lived in those cultures, I would have stood as a minority in my charity. But I can never be certain that I would have.
What I have been discovering more and more recently is that the world is not black and white: it is grey. I think I knew that growing up. However, even though the world is grey, people can, and should be black and white. What I mean is that, any action can be viewed as moral or immoral. Good or bad. A sin or not. However, as people, we don't get the right to examine the motives (unless a person is on trial) and determine if there was more good or more bad behind the action. Only God can do that.
But when we give into grey, then we allow ourselves to slip from white to black. If we hold on to white, we may be wrong, but at least it is a well-intentioned wrong. While grey may be well intentioned, it is losing its footing and sliding down a slope where it grows blacker and blacker. It's hard to be black and white - or white to use my analogy. And yet, I believe it's necessary.
So what's this white I speak of? What is the defined morality? Well, I would say the tenets of the Christian faith. Even these people argue over and try to find the grey in. The answer, I believe, is white, but even our best attempts to be white end up a little off-white, if you will. There will be no perfection on earth. But even so, we should not deliberately go around trying to find black to mix into our off-white to turn it grey.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Myth of the C Student
I got A's. In high school. In college. A's. You could say I worked hard for them, and sometimes I did! But I mostly just got A's because that's what I did. You could say it defined me. So for someone whose entire being is defined by her marks in school, certain articles that popped up every now and then on pages like MSN and in weekly magazines disturbed me.
These articles used various methods to tell the world that it is the C Student who is scueessful. Your boss will be a C student. The C student is more likely to be hired. Companies want C students. Ugh.
I will recap quickly the reasoning behind these articles: A and B students, they say, are too studious. They spend all their time making the grade, but not making connections. They don't have the life experience. D and F students are lazy. So the C student wins out eventually.
But it's all a myth. My theory is that it's more of the modern-day mumbo jumbo trying to make people feel better about themselves. (Another similar modern-day concoction is the change of IQ from being intelligence related to anything related...IQ now has to take into account someone's abilities with sports, music, social skills, etc.) Think about the high school student who works hard and brings home a C. He cries to his mother, and is told, "It's okay. C Students are actually more successful!" So not only is this a myth, but it is used to tell people that it's okay to be mediocre. It's okay to not acutally strive for the top, because if they coast along, they'll get there anyway.
In my personal hiring experience, my GPA was a factor - a big factor! My stellar college GPA landed me an internship completely on its own! Beleive me - I bombed the interview but got the job. Likewise, when looking for my real job, interviewers gave that long, low whistle when they looked at my GPA. I could tell they were impressed. So being an A or B student does not hurt your chances of getting a good job.
But does it hurt your chances of success? No. Yes. Maybe. It depends on your definition of success, but by the world's definition - no. Being an A student (and carrying over that work ethic into your full time job) does not hurt! People tend to forget that a grade is not something that is arbitrarily assigned. It is a ranking that considers both ability and work ethic. If saying that it takes A's to succeed seems harsh, consider this:
Not all jobs are academic in nature. However, many require a college degree. Not everyone is equal in ability or interest. I could not expect to succeed in a career as a doctor. But I also probably would not have maintained a high GPA in a medical program. We'd all like our doctors to have gotten A's.
So why not our businessmen? In the time I've been in business, I've discovered the truth to the C Student myth. A Students are successful. They combine smarts and hard work to get the job done, and get it done well. As their employers discover this, A Students are giving increasingly difficult, high profile tasks, and are better paid for their efforts. If you were to analyze their pay on an hourly basis to their coworkers, you might not see much of a difference. A Students, in the career world, will be challenged until they can no longer conquer a task, resulting in early and often promotions.
D and F Students continue to be D and F students. If they manage to get a job with a bad academic history, they continue to underperform. This may be a lack of actual understanding. While unfortunate, companies cannot simply explain away the poor workers by saying "they tried hard." Results are important. As their performance is discovered, they are asked to leave.
Now, it is the C students - or perhaps actually the B students - that suffer. When it comes to layoffs, it's not the "bad" that get laid off (because they'll be fired or quit later on down the road anyway - it's natural turnover), and it's certainly not the best. It's the "good." Those people who are steady workers but not overachievers. Those who know how to do their job, but never really try to do it better or faster. They don't rock the boat. So they get kicked out of it.
So then, why is it that people always say that you will work for someone who is not as smart as you are? Think about it. Everyone thinks they are smarter than their boss - because most people think that they are smarter than they are. Even so, I have met with some pretty dense bosses in my time - but never my own bosses. My bosses are smart, and I aspire to one day have that knowledge. But in my work as an auditor, far too often I have found people in high positions that don't have a clue. A girl two years out of college should not have to teach a Controller of any sized company basic accounting. But it happens.
So is your boss smarter than you? Probably not. Are you smarter than them? Probably not. It seems that the boss vs. un-boss is based more on career decisions and age than actual intelligence.
So the moral of the story - C Students do not have it better. They do not get a free ride in life just because they snoozed through class. The moral of the story is that, while you may not rocket to the top, working hard will at least ensure that you don't get voted off the island too early. And if you feel like you are one of those people stuck working for a C Student type boss, think about what put that person in their position. No, A Students will not automatically be made the boss-man right out of school. Yes, they will probably work for a C Student at some, or maybe all, of their career. But it is not because they are a C Student. Not at all.
These articles used various methods to tell the world that it is the C Student who is scueessful. Your boss will be a C student. The C student is more likely to be hired. Companies want C students. Ugh.
I will recap quickly the reasoning behind these articles: A and B students, they say, are too studious. They spend all their time making the grade, but not making connections. They don't have the life experience. D and F students are lazy. So the C student wins out eventually.
But it's all a myth. My theory is that it's more of the modern-day mumbo jumbo trying to make people feel better about themselves. (Another similar modern-day concoction is the change of IQ from being intelligence related to anything related...IQ now has to take into account someone's abilities with sports, music, social skills, etc.) Think about the high school student who works hard and brings home a C. He cries to his mother, and is told, "It's okay. C Students are actually more successful!" So not only is this a myth, but it is used to tell people that it's okay to be mediocre. It's okay to not acutally strive for the top, because if they coast along, they'll get there anyway.
In my personal hiring experience, my GPA was a factor - a big factor! My stellar college GPA landed me an internship completely on its own! Beleive me - I bombed the interview but got the job. Likewise, when looking for my real job, interviewers gave that long, low whistle when they looked at my GPA. I could tell they were impressed. So being an A or B student does not hurt your chances of getting a good job.
But does it hurt your chances of success? No. Yes. Maybe. It depends on your definition of success, but by the world's definition - no. Being an A student (and carrying over that work ethic into your full time job) does not hurt! People tend to forget that a grade is not something that is arbitrarily assigned. It is a ranking that considers both ability and work ethic. If saying that it takes A's to succeed seems harsh, consider this:
Not all jobs are academic in nature. However, many require a college degree. Not everyone is equal in ability or interest. I could not expect to succeed in a career as a doctor. But I also probably would not have maintained a high GPA in a medical program. We'd all like our doctors to have gotten A's.
So why not our businessmen? In the time I've been in business, I've discovered the truth to the C Student myth. A Students are successful. They combine smarts and hard work to get the job done, and get it done well. As their employers discover this, A Students are giving increasingly difficult, high profile tasks, and are better paid for their efforts. If you were to analyze their pay on an hourly basis to their coworkers, you might not see much of a difference. A Students, in the career world, will be challenged until they can no longer conquer a task, resulting in early and often promotions.
D and F Students continue to be D and F students. If they manage to get a job with a bad academic history, they continue to underperform. This may be a lack of actual understanding. While unfortunate, companies cannot simply explain away the poor workers by saying "they tried hard." Results are important. As their performance is discovered, they are asked to leave.
Now, it is the C students - or perhaps actually the B students - that suffer. When it comes to layoffs, it's not the "bad" that get laid off (because they'll be fired or quit later on down the road anyway - it's natural turnover), and it's certainly not the best. It's the "good." Those people who are steady workers but not overachievers. Those who know how to do their job, but never really try to do it better or faster. They don't rock the boat. So they get kicked out of it.
So then, why is it that people always say that you will work for someone who is not as smart as you are? Think about it. Everyone thinks they are smarter than their boss - because most people think that they are smarter than they are. Even so, I have met with some pretty dense bosses in my time - but never my own bosses. My bosses are smart, and I aspire to one day have that knowledge. But in my work as an auditor, far too often I have found people in high positions that don't have a clue. A girl two years out of college should not have to teach a Controller of any sized company basic accounting. But it happens.
So is your boss smarter than you? Probably not. Are you smarter than them? Probably not. It seems that the boss vs. un-boss is based more on career decisions and age than actual intelligence.
So the moral of the story - C Students do not have it better. They do not get a free ride in life just because they snoozed through class. The moral of the story is that, while you may not rocket to the top, working hard will at least ensure that you don't get voted off the island too early. And if you feel like you are one of those people stuck working for a C Student type boss, think about what put that person in their position. No, A Students will not automatically be made the boss-man right out of school. Yes, they will probably work for a C Student at some, or maybe all, of their career. But it is not because they are a C Student. Not at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)