Happiness: The Metric for Measuring Success

By Raman

It was a long time ago (well, at least in the scale of time that I have lived through) that someone told me that I am a total loser. I was not happy at being told that, and retorted that there may have been times when I have found myself to be totally lost, but that I wouldn’t ever consider myself a total loser. That thought was lost somewhere in the depths of my memory, but surfaced again when I was recently asked by a dejected person whether he should consider himself a loser. I was surprised (as well as pleased) to see that I still hold on to what I instinctively felt years ago. However, it also triggered a thought process in me on what really makes one a loser.

[su_pullquote align=”right”]As long as hope and optimism are alive in us, we tend to think of our losses and failures as temporary, and look forward to a victory which will eventually make us a winner, thus rejecting the idea that a loss has made us a loser.[/su_pullquote]

If winning makes a winner, losing should also make a loser, should it not? But as long as hope and optimism are alive in us, we tend to think of our losses and failures as temporary, and look forward to a victory which will eventually make us a winner, thus rejecting the idea that a loss has made us a loser. While this is very reassuring, how valid is this argument? How is a loss any more temporary than a win, and what makes us think that a victory is permanent? No athlete who has bagged the most coveted trophies has been able to maintain that superiority forever – their winning streak would end sooner or later as they are past their prime, or when more capable challengers appear. But few would tag them as losers, and this throws some light on our criteria for labeling people as winners and losers.

If a person were to win at least once in life, he is often considered a winner. As a corollary, losers are those who do not ever win in their lives. Since an entire lifetime is too long a period to wait before judging people, the “loser” tag is also applied to those who are considered incapable of ever being a winner. With this new definition, it appears that the optimist’s contention that he would one day be a winner in spite of his present losses seems justified. After all, it is impossible for anybody to live for a few years and never be successful in anything at all.

[su_pullquote align=”right”]Those who attach importance to money equate wealth to success. Those who crave for recognition and fame measure success by renown. Those who seek power think that to wield and use power is a sign of success. Most of these indices are competitive, and success or failure depends on the relative performance of others.[/su_pullquote]

But, again, I find it hard to believe that success at “anything” is sufficient to redeem a lifetime of failures. A person terms himself or another as a success or failure based on the latter’s performance at what the former thinks is important. Those who attach importance to money equate wealth to success. Those who crave for recognition and fame measure success by renown. Those who seek power think that to wield and use power is a sign of success. There are still others who consider success as the ability to attract and control women. Most of these indices are competitive, and success or failure depends on the relative performance of others. Some other parameters, like academic performance, while having little intrinsic value, are used as indicators of future success in other endeavors. For example, the better a student performs in school, the more likely he is to get admission in a good college, thus improving his chances of landing a well-paying job, which is conducive to making more money, which constitutes success for many. Money in turn is considered by some to be useful in increasing one’s influence in society, while some others think of power as a shortcut to making money. For some, money and power are both means of attracting women.

From an evolutionary perspective, this does make sense. Just as it is customary to align the goals of all units of an organization to the goals of the organization itself, human societies still judge the success of an individual based on how it aids the success of the species. The success of a species is in its continuation, and thus the success of an individual is his ability to live on for a longer time and to pass on his genes. Money, power, fame, popularity with women, all contribute to determining a person’s success in this endeavor. In a true sense, however, how important is it for an individual to perpetuate his bloodline? What does it matter to him if genes derived from his are still around, say, a hundred years after his death? Should he even care? While natural selection can possibly have chosen more of those who care, humans have grown beyond a point where this base instinct can control their actions and aspirations. It should be possible for humans of today to think and find for themselves what they really want, rather than follow the dictates of an evolutionarily acquired ambition. Once they do, they can use this as a criteria for measuring success.

Happiness is seldom a function of extrinsic factors such as money, fame, power or material accomplishment beyond a level required for basic sustenance. | Photo Courtesy: Pexels