Being Flattered vs. Being Challenged

             

-John Stuart Mill: Utilitarian, originator of the "Doc Brown Disheveled Genius" look.

               One question that keeps rolling around in my head, particularly as of late, is what people get satisfaction from. Being flattered - i.e. having their tastes, points of view, and overall interests satisfied - vs. being challenged - i.e. pushed out of their comfort zone, having their perspectives altered by hearing a viewpoint radically different from theirs, considering their position in the world and the potential that there are just as valid, yet drastically different ones from their own. It is not a particularly profound or original concept, but one most definitely worth discussion, especially in our current times when social media and the internet provides us with endless means to expand our experiences, but yet I see an increase in people narrowing their exposure to news, media, and even their potential base of friends in order to feel as comfortable as possible each waking second of the day: If the conversation I am having is not going in the direction I want, I can shut my mouth, look at my phone, and read an article that does agree with my viewpoint. Instead of having to actually engage with someone, I can remain in my own sphere of comfort, regardless of how little doing so achieves. In fact, by distracting ourselves from any sort of face-to-face conflict, we are hindering our ability to grow, and, although we may think we are more well-informed, we are indeed less-so, and each time distancing ourselves from actual growth as a viable member of society that has the capacity to progress; this is not to say doing one's own thing is the wrong way to live, I just see more and more examples of people assured in their thinking, despite all physical signs to the contrary (not that the physical world is the bearer of all truths, but unfortunately decisions that are not in our control are made off of mostly physical judgements, whether it is physical attractiveness, perceived, wealth, or anything of the like). One can claim to be happy because they can go to work, come home to their family, squeeze on the couch with them, and sit in front of the television for the next 5 hours, but are they really living the fulfilling life they intended for themselves? Are they not simply falling further and further down the proverbial rabbit hole, inching closer to the all-too-cliche mid-life crisis or death bed proclamation that life is meaningless?

               This may seem like a cynical point of view, but on the contrary, I believe it to be a hopeful one: By broadening our knowledge, and allowing ourselves to let cognitive dissonance into our lives every once in a while, we can find the true value in our relationships, whether it is with a friend who we always see eye-to-eye with, or an enemy we find it so hard to be around that we simply dismiss them as useless and incorrect. People have the capacity to surprise us, but more and more it seems surprise leads to disappointment, especially when it goes against some previous belief someone might have had about a social issue or even something as dynamic as a human being's attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. If we allowed ourselves to feel discomfort more, we might grow and gain actual value from every experience we have, instead of simply learning that we want to avoid the situation from now on. I have met many people who have said a variation of the following phrase to me, in regards to people, movies, music, and even conversations:

"I thought it was good (i.e. "I enjoyed meeting them"), but it wasn't what I expected, so I didn't really like it (them)."

               The confidence and lack of irony which with this statement is often said simply shocks me; I find it almost laughable. In an age when information is everywhere, and people claim to be connected to one another like never before, we create our own barriers to limit our worldview and thus our potential for true growth and success. Instead of relishing in our own accomplishments, we seek out others, and reward them with a follow, like, or our unconditional idolization. Instead of believing we have a unique voice, with a unique reason for waking up every day, many of us try to fit into a mold that other people define us as. Maybe it is from my experience working at a major communications company whose senior employees don't seem to have the capacity/foresight to communicate directly with their employees except via occasional emails and angry phone calls when a mistake is made,  the rest of the time leaving people unsupervised, hindered from thinking outside of the box, and feeling hopeless for individual progress, but my fervent belief is that because we put certain types of people in our culture on a pedestal, they suddenly become more important, simply because so many people would rather not put in the time to consider how they started at the same exact place as everyone else - in a womb, with not a care in the world, and only their own physical bodies and minds to get them to wherever it is they would end up.

               There are even cases I have discovered recently where people seem to change their beliefs in order to feel better about the way they are seen or approached. Take, for instance, some "asshole" I went to high school with. One day, towards the end of his run there, somebody decided to replace the word "asshole" with his last name. Instead of being offended or down-right angry, this person took pride in the fact that he was an asshole, and even started asshole chants himself, just so he could hear a bunch of people chanting his name, regardless of the connotation. This, while a silly high school example of juvenility, is not the first or last time I saw people flaunting their poor social skills. Consider the entire reality television world, for example: Most shows are renewed based on viewership, and unfortunately most viewers are humored by such vile, irresponsible behavior that people then feel the need to act out (and record), in hopes of getting famous for of all the stupidity that others are getting famous for. I have family members that would make for great reality show characters, but they are such poor human beings at times, with such insulting behavioral tendencies, that giving them the satisfaction that they may be entertaining for others is simply out of the question in my book. Would I have more day-to-day freedom? Probably. Would I make more money working on a show focused on them then I would wasting all my talents, sitting in a dark room in a company whose brand and name has become so much more important than any of the employees working there (except for the few famous faces that are seen in almost all promotional material sent out to the mainstream world)? Almost definitely. But I would also be flattering these awful people as well as exploiting the ignorant ones who think it makes them better by sitting on their couch, laughing, pointing, and saying "Can you believe THEM? At least I'M not like THAT!" But by wasting your time validating your behavior by comparing it to others (or simply winding down by digesting the narcissistic behavior of others), are you not just as bad, if not worse?

               And yes, there is certain value to doing whatever it takes to survive in this world, emerging out of the doldrums of society, despite the odds, and becoming a face everyone recognizes and admires (for reasons both valid and invalid), earning you freedom to do what almost nobody else can. However, the means of getting there seem to me just as if not more important than the idea of "getting there," which I believe has become the focus these days. As Sting says in this years Oscar-Winning 20 Feet From Stardom:

"There’s this idea that you can go on American Idol and suddenly become a star; but you may bypass the spiritual work you have to do to get there. And if you bypass that, your success will be wafer thin."

               Granted, American Idol is one small thing in a world full of them, but like it or not, it is an American Institution and certainly has changed network television forever. But at what cost? If any random person off the street can get a record deal after a month or two of hard work and the right on-screen appeal, it opens up a platform for anyone and anything to be praised, regardless of the quality of said talents. This is particularly noteworthy in the film world, where the studio system has become so transparently monetarily-oriented that some of the most exploitative, manipulative and ultimately useless stories get seen, simply because most audiences lack the imagination, or worse off, the motivation to broaden the types of stories they want to see (or even believe belong on the big screen). Consider a conversation I had recently with an unnamed acquaintance of mine:

Them: "I can't wait for Ted 2!"
Me: "Why would you even say something like that?"
Them: "Cause it's a bear who talks, has sex, and smokes weed."
Me: "But I already saw that in the first one."
Them: "And don't you want to see more of the same?"

Or this one, regarding "A Good Day to Die Hard":

Me: "God I wish I could go back to a time when there were only three of these."
Them: "Why? This has is so much better... it has so many more explosions!"

               I don't think this needs more explanation, but the attitude scares me nonetheless. Because our need for constant stimulation can be so easily fulfilled, we now need louder, more colorful stimulation (e.g. the outrageous expensive, exploitative electronic concerts that get thrown each and every day in this country, and around the world), lest we feel empty inside for even one second. Instead of paying attention to our place in the world and how we can truly thrive in it, we convey the attitude of "I need more of this, more of that, more of everything to be happy!" It's almost as if everyone is saying "throw more shit in my face so I can forget about who I really am! Let outside influences define me, as opposed to letting me put my own stamp on the world!" Or even worse "My place in the world is defined by that which I choose to take from outside myself!" For filmmakers these days, it is like they grew up saying "I want to make a movie just like that" to its literal conclusion, making the exact same movie, taking the money, and perpetuating a lack of creativity that is the norm by now, not the exception - made even moreso by an audience unwilling to believe that a good movie can contain no big-name actors, no special effects, and a story that doesn't immediately give away it's emotional and physical structure in a mere 10-15 words. By adhering to structures created and molded by people who were around before any of us were alive, we are indirectly and unintentionally repeating cycles that I can almost guarantee people in the past hoped would not be repeated. People say "that's just the way it is"(Not in a Bruce Hornsby/Tupac way), as if they do not matter: all that does are the systems put in place before we came to be: We are simply filling roles that have come before, nothing more (the technological innovations of late do very little to change this - everyone trying to come up with the next big app or the next bestseller or even the next blockbuster franchise are simply considering what people want rather than what they need - at least SOME apps do it in a very streamlined, meaningful way; most others simply detract from letting you create your own value in life, feeling the need to latch on to something else to feel calm, comfortable, happy, understood, - an organized manual for ultimate external satisfaction, if you will).

               So what to do in these times, when originality can be seen as threatening, and the Status Quo, while eternally challengeable and alterable, is becoming more and more about how people appear to be, as opposed to how they actually are? About how many eyeballs you can get on your creations rather than whether the work deserves any eyeballs at all? I leave you with a quote, from John Stuart Mills:

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."