Don’t accept what the world says without a healthy form of pessimism.
As a naturally optimistic Canadian (born and raised), I had to learn in my life what healthy pessimism tangibly was through better understanding the non-dominant sides of my particular personality. I don’t find many things in life to be “negative” in any way, shape, or form. The way I fine-tuned this rare side of myself is mostly through strangers and friends that are from different cultures, backgrounds, and value systems. I threw myself into these relationships — no matter how painful or challenging — because I thrive in finding the discordant notes not just in music but in my personality. These are habits I’ve optimized over the stark contrast of attending school in 4 different countries before the age of 12. These sharp changes in environment forced me to understand myself much quicker than the average person while maximizing my ability to adapt. As a result, it’s given me a competitive advantage in most verticals of business, education, science, and literature. One of the biggest and hardest lessons I’ve learned in my life because of my nature is that too much of one thing (no matter what it is) is never a good thing. This includes, but is not limited to, humility.
Whether it’s fitness, self-care, medicine, business, music, child education, systemic bias, politics, religion, tradition, and/or higher education; I do not accept what the majority claim to be fact. Rather, I see things for what they are, never for what I want them to be.
The common issue with most theories is that while they do explain aspects of a particular subject they don’t explain all aspects of complexity and nuance. One can see this across the internet from its inception, throughout the pandemic, and through the financial crisis from advisors that tout their education over tangible results. I’ve never met a single advisor that didn’t let me know at the beginning of the meeting, in the middle, and at the end that I needed their advice. Most have theories that lack the completion to have the confidence that is displayed daily. I believe that is because most are unaware.
There are three guiding principles that, to me, constitute a healthy form of pessimism.
1. Never assume what you see is what you’re seeing.
Perhaps the most obvious example of this today is social media, but the truism of human nature that social media represents is not a new phenomenon. Social media expounds upon everyday life. It presents a curated version of oneself to others. People are already making social media moves before they turn on a device. Social media is only the 21st-century version. As a baseline, the performance of sending one’s “representative” (an avatar of what one believes to be the optimal version of their personality) out into the world through visual cues has been happening for hundreds of years. In my opinion, this particular category of critique of social media is misguided as this is not new. Social media is simply the latest avenue that shows the conformity on display — in this case, in a digital form versus the analog forms of the 20th century (i.e. newspapers and magazines and public appearances) as well as the pervasive and longstanding practices of selecting styles of clothing and personal grooming to present a desired facade to the world.
2. Never assume what you’ve heard is what you actually listened to.
There is a performative aspect to human behavior. When in public, people are not typically themselves, At least not fully. We learn customary ways to behave and speak. In front of others, most people are performing and conforming. Most people conform to the environment they find themselves in, so it’s reasonable to assume that over half of people are performing and voicing customary traditions over who they are with a bias to the status quo and self-interest. This is true not only of strangers and public figures but of colleagues, acquaintances, and friends. What is displayed, what they’re interested in (at least to the extent they are), is very often because most of society is based on conforming. We can never, therefore, presume alignment between what is said, heard, and inferred.
This is common in the entertainment industry, the common practice of “reputation management” by public figures and institutions alike, and even redirects in casual conversation. While these are high-visibility examples that may be considered negative, I do not see them as such. This often comes in the well-intentioned form of advice and role-modeling (when done from an aspirational versus a raw and direct point of view).
An example of this is a refrain commonly repeated to children: “you can be anything you want to be.” While this has been said to many people, it seems to have become most pervasive in the generation of children born in the 1980s. This group of people seemed to be the first generation who were told this en masse. We can now see the damage of this well-meaning sentiment with many adults from this generation feeling like unrealized losers when they’re not. In reality, we can only be what we have the individual capability to be. That in and of itself is fantastic. But when the scale is changed to expand that to “anything” instead of being based on individual capacity, it becomes problematic. This is overly ambitious, unaware, false positivity. It is nonsense in that it does not make sense. It’s a blissful statement that leaves the child feeling like a winner but they don’t know what they’re winning. The net result is that they feel like a loser because they end up competing in the wrong areas. Instead of understanding themselves and their unique strengths and limitations, they’re coached to run headfirst in directions that may not suit them in the name of “you can do anything you put your mind to.” This is drawing a false equivalency based on culture and tradition versus assessing themselves as individuals based on Behavioral RNA™️.
It’s reasonable to assume that no parent or mentor who said this to a young person meant for the damaging end result seen in most cases. It’s said in a supportive and positive spirit. But the child who listens to what they hear without making that distinction is worse off as a result.
3. Most importantly, never assume you know any one particular person, place, or thing completely.
No matter what city you go to in the world (I’ve personally been to over 600), no matter what neighborhood/venue/stadium/historical landmarks/people you encounter during a moment in time, you have to take them in a category like taking a photograph. This also applies to people who we know in a particular stage or period of life. It’s a snapshot of a moment in time, but everyone and everything is forever changing. We age and have new experiences that change us. Even historical buildings, art, and monuments undergo restorations and renovations. We have to take what we experience along with when we experience it. It’s a snapshot at that moment. Our experience of a person, place, or thing doesn’t mean they will stay that way. Everything is always changing besides when you experienced it.
Working to be aware takes not only work but, first, deep self-analysis to observe and understand how to observe relative to one’s fixed personality (which is where Behavioral RNA™️ comes in). Conversely, the personality formed by one’s environment, family, and closest 7 non-family members make up one’s psychology. The distinction between Behavioral RNA™️ and psychology is that one is fixed and one is a theory without awareness of its landscape.
Behavioral RNA™️ is black and white (which at times can translate to both). As I continue to show the contrast between psychology and Behavioral RNA™️, a main theme will always emerge consistently in terms of Behavioral RNA™️: it gives the individual the power to know themselves without interference from an outside force. In my view, this is a very important separating factor because it gives the individual a simple understanding of the goal upfront and clarity around an outcome. Psychology, in contrast, is more subjective relative to who administers it. Psychology largely depends on an outside force. Hence the phrases, “I need therapy,” “I need to understand their psychology to figure out their behavior,” and “therapy will make you feel better.” Behavioral RNA is acutely focused on the individual and their unique identification based on a clear measurement tool like a ruler, graph, calculator, and/or sound amplifier.
In conclusion: is it most important to you to be told about your behavior by an external source or to understand your own behavior outside of an external source?
