Recent events in my life have caused me to think about the value of being able to predict things. For me, the value would have been upwards of $3,000. My dad's office had a March Madness pool in which over 300 of his coworkers participated, at $10 a bracket. However, I am currently in a 43-way tie for 154th place and, barring an incredibly unlikely turn of events involving Dayton's victory over West Virginia being nullified (maybe due to some scandal involving preformance-enhancing drugs/academic ineligibility/cheating/bad officiating/an unfair advantage since the game was being played in Dayton) and West Virginia, after reentering the tournament, making it to the Elite Eight, I have no shot of winning. My only consolation is that I am crushing my dad, who is in an 18-way tie for 291st place (he had WVU making the Final Four).
After musing on my downfall, I started thinking about how great it would be to be able to predict the future. Not only would I be $3,000 richer, but I would also be a lot more certain about what decisions I should make and what ramifications my actions would have. What's more, I would be able to help other people by predicting bad things that might happen to them. This is kind of like a preview I saw for a movie that I don't remember the name of. Nicholas Cage is in it, and he plays a guy that can predict future disasters and tries to prevent them.
Though being able to predict the future seems cool, in reality it would totally suck. Instead of living in the present, I would be constantly preoccupied with what was going to happen. Just think about how much less fun the NCAA Tournament would be if you knew the outcomes of all the games beforehand. The spontenaiety, surprise, and unpredicabilitude is what I like most about it. In fact, those are the best things about life in general.
In conclusion, though it would be pretty awesome to be able to predict the future (not to mention helful), the many cons outweigh the pros, in my opinion. While it would be great to have my whole life mapped out and figured out in my mind, what makes life so intriguing is the endless possibilities and the unlimited potential of the future. I wouldn't give that up for anything, not even that $3,000.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Dialectic: Taking Risks vs. Playing it Safe
I don't really know what got me thinking about the nature of risks and pros and cons involved with risk-taking, but I realized that it's an interesting dialectic (assuming that I even know what a dialectic is, which I don't think I do).
Risk-Taking:
Many people enjoy living life on the edge, taking chances all the way. These people tend to be more exciting and fun to be around than those who mostly play it safe. They also can be very successful in life if they chose the right things to gamble on and get a little luck to help them out. However, these gambles can often blow up in their faces. If they're not careful, they might take a chance when they shouldn't, and then they would be in big trouble. While these people might be happier than their more boring and methodical opposites, their happiness is very likely directly tied to their dangerous lifestyle.
Playing it Safe:
People who rarely or never take risks are a lot safer and more stable. Whereas people who always live on the edge can get a bit irritating or abrasive, people who live far from the edge usually don't rub people the wrong way, other than just being boring. Non-risk-takers might also be unhappy with their lives, feeling the monotony of their existence crushing them. They might also be fairly successful in their lives, but probably not due to anything they did.
The most interesting part of this dialectic is trying to strike the perfect balance of risk and safety. I think this struggle is captured perfectly in the movie Office Space (really, what complex and sophisticated idea isn't?). The main character, Peter Gibbons, starts out the movie in a humdrum existence, not taking any risks. He's stuck in a boring job and he is still with his girlfriend despite having the knowledge that she's cheating on him. Then, he goes to a hypnotherapist who inspires him to relax and take more chances. He dumps his girlfriend, asks out Jennifer Aniston, and starts caring less and less about his job. He eventually goes too far, though, when he decides to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company. He realizes that he must find a way to balance risk and not-risk. He decides to quit his job, fess up to the theft (which becomes immaterial when Milton burns down his office), and get a job he likes better, as a construction worker.
Applying this dialectic to my own life will be fairly tough to do, mainly for the reason that I'm not sure whether I need a dose of risk or safety. Part of the problem is that there are so many aspects to my life, and I have a different risk-taking philosophy for each one. Within the confines of Six Flags, I would characterize myself as a daredevil. However, in many aspects of my personal life, I am pretty timid. I believe that in general, I could stand to take more risks and put myself out there more, but I will make sure not to lean too far toward one side or the other.
Risk-Taking:
Many people enjoy living life on the edge, taking chances all the way. These people tend to be more exciting and fun to be around than those who mostly play it safe. They also can be very successful in life if they chose the right things to gamble on and get a little luck to help them out. However, these gambles can often blow up in their faces. If they're not careful, they might take a chance when they shouldn't, and then they would be in big trouble. While these people might be happier than their more boring and methodical opposites, their happiness is very likely directly tied to their dangerous lifestyle.
Playing it Safe:
People who rarely or never take risks are a lot safer and more stable. Whereas people who always live on the edge can get a bit irritating or abrasive, people who live far from the edge usually don't rub people the wrong way, other than just being boring. Non-risk-takers might also be unhappy with their lives, feeling the monotony of their existence crushing them. They might also be fairly successful in their lives, but probably not due to anything they did.
The most interesting part of this dialectic is trying to strike the perfect balance of risk and safety. I think this struggle is captured perfectly in the movie Office Space (really, what complex and sophisticated idea isn't?). The main character, Peter Gibbons, starts out the movie in a humdrum existence, not taking any risks. He's stuck in a boring job and he is still with his girlfriend despite having the knowledge that she's cheating on him. Then, he goes to a hypnotherapist who inspires him to relax and take more chances. He dumps his girlfriend, asks out Jennifer Aniston, and starts caring less and less about his job. He eventually goes too far, though, when he decides to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company. He realizes that he must find a way to balance risk and not-risk. He decides to quit his job, fess up to the theft (which becomes immaterial when Milton burns down his office), and get a job he likes better, as a construction worker.
Applying this dialectic to my own life will be fairly tough to do, mainly for the reason that I'm not sure whether I need a dose of risk or safety. Part of the problem is that there are so many aspects to my life, and I have a different risk-taking philosophy for each one. Within the confines of Six Flags, I would characterize myself as a daredevil. However, in many aspects of my personal life, I am pretty timid. I believe that in general, I could stand to take more risks and put myself out there more, but I will make sure not to lean too far toward one side or the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)