As a teenager, I remember how important it was for many of my contemporaries to send a clear message to the rest of us that they were different. They loved music that no one had heard. They shunned sports and spent their free time in different ways. Some had weird haircuts. Some had piercings and such. But, above all, the prevailing method for individual differentiation was in clothing style. There were always plenty of in-style fashions to rebel against. When the cool kids were all wearing Polo shirts, the desperately different wore something else, anything else. It was as if they felt outside of the mainstream and, rather than accept this as their lot in life, they stood up against the very idea of mainstreamism.

This little view into human group dynamics tells a larger story. Everyone (or most everyone) wants to fit in. When we don’t fit in where we want to fit in, we have a couple of options. We can either try harder to fit in, which is almost always transparent and leads to further ostracization. Or we can decide that we no longer want to fit in. When we decide the latter, we have to look for other groups to accept us. When we find one, it is nearly always the case that the fundamental feature of our new group is a distaste for mainstreamism. It’s the misery loves company thing. The disaffected come together by virtue of their shared mistreatment at the hands of the cool.

The true irony of all this is the idea that those who reject the mainstream are being individuals, while the in-crowd is a engaged in the saddest kind of group think. I’m here to tell you – individuality is far more rare than most would like to admit. Even among the disaffected, the quest to fit in runs wild. There’s the hippie subculture, with its commitment to the au natural lifestyle. Yet, standing in the parking lot of a Phish concert, it’s hard to tell the individuals from the poseurs. Same thing with the body mutilation, tattoo set. Go into a tattoo parlor on the seedy side of town in khakis and a button down and you’ll quickly see how much you represent the lemming-like mainstream society that so offends these people. Then, if you have the means and patience to go to these lengths, wear your oldest, dirtiest clothes and paint some artificial tattoos on your visible skin and go back into that same tattoo parlor. You’ll find your reception is quite different. This probably comes as no surprise, but there is a point here.

Individuality happens in the mind. It’s not about what you wear or whether you choose to pierce multiple parts of your body. It’s about what you think and how you express yourself. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to make statements with our appearance – there’s something very powerful about being able to influence the minds of others without saying a word. However, things get sticky when we believe that our outward appearance is the core of our individuality. The fact is that fitting in is so genetically in-grained into our species that nothing is ever going to extricate the quest for it from human discourse. To rebel against this and assume that, in doing so, we have achieved individuality is a serious mistake. This is putting the cart before the horse…big time. The price of this mistake is waking up later in life only to realize that we’re really no different than what we rebelled against and that the time has long since passed for us to make out mark on this world. And it doesn’t help that there are entire industries dedicated to helping us screw up.

I was walking through a J.Crew store a few days ago, and I noticed that they are selling these old-looking t-shirts with faded logos ostensibly from ski resorts and mountain lodges. Now why would anyone want to buy something like this? It’s simple. Wearing new t-shirts with J.Crew plastered across them is the equivalent of selling out in today’s youth culture. Your clothes have to look old, so as to give the impression that you don’t care what you look like. In years past, kids accomplished this by buying clothes at thrift stores or consignment shops, ironically putting a ton of effort into looking like they put in no effort whatsoever. Nowadays, however, clothing companies have figured out that they can mass market new clothes that are made to look like old clothes. And, crazy as it is, these clothes are selling like hotcakes. (Been to an Abercrombie and Fitch lately?) Now who’s the sellout?

The idea I’m trying to get across here is that this notion of selling out or being viewed as mainstream is entirely unproductive. It produces lemmings of another stripe, but lemmings just the same. Group think is real, and the key to getting around it is not in pretending to be something we’re not. I think individuality is essential to making the most out of life. We have to learn to think for ourselves. We have to learn to decide what we like and to have the courage to express it. New clothes that look like old clothes have nothing to do with it. When we figure out what makes us us, everything else, our fashion sense, our choice of friends, our jobs, everything falls into line. But this is hard. Taking the time to really get to know who we are as people is harder than simply donning the latest fashions and letting everyone else tell us who we are. Nevertheless, this is the task that lays before us. Let us not shrink from it for fear of what we might find.

I think there’s a fine line between internalizing our environment too much and too little. In fact, I’ve long thought that the nexus between the environment and the mind is where life, for most of us, is really played out. And, despite how much I’ve contemplated this idea, I don’t have much to show for my musings. I can, however, offer some general observations.

Let’s begin with the over-internalizers. If we internalize too much, everything that happens to us hits home. A guy I know hates to see runners along the roads. He says they remind him that he should be working out, even though he can’t seem to get around to it. This guy is internalizing his environment too much. For guys like him, every little situation serves as a mirror reflecting back who he really is. Since he resents himself for not being what he thinks he ought to be, it pains him to be reminded frequently. In short, his environment makes him feel bad about himself. The opposite can also be true.

Folks close to the former president, Bill Clinton, say that he is literally addicted to public adulation. I don’t know him, so I can’t say if it’s true. But let’s suppose it is. If this is true, Bill also internalizes his environment too much. He needs an external world to bring him happiness, so he continuously internalizes the public’s demand for his presence to bolster his self-opinion. Indeed, Dick Morris (who, admittedly, has been grinding an axe against the guy for years) says that Clinton jumped out of the recovery bed recently to stump for Kerry not so much because he loves the Massachusetts Senator, but because he needed a praise fix. I guess everybody needs something to keep them going. But, for some people, that something is definitely not their environment, or at least not a conscious concern about it.

We can call these the under-analyzers. People like this go through life oblivious to what is going on around them, especially with regard to the people around them. Some are total bafoons, and they can’t help themselves. But there are others, and I think they constitute the majority of under-analyzers, are some of our brightest achievers. They’re the most driven among us. It’s as if they’ve latched onto the formula for modern success, and they are working it for all it’s worth. There are two big problems with this.

The first is a matter of a majorly flawed premise. What exactly is modern success? I’m shocked at how many people will instantly respond with a litany of material possessions. In their minds, we are what we own. So, it’s no surprise that these kinds of people equate being successful with making a ton of cash. And…as America is still the land of opportunity, they figure out somewhere along the way that all they have to do to get cash is to work hard and make good long-term decisions. Voila…add one more to the rat race. The problem is that this model of success is backwards. I say that the problem is a flawed premise because, though it may be true that the best way to become successful by society’s modern standards is through crushing hours of work, there is no evidence to suggest that being successful by society’s standards has any inherent value. Prozac anyone? This brings us to the second big problem.

I am thoroughly convinced that the best things in life are times spent having fun with loved ones. In fact, my personal measure of success is how frequently I can make these things happen. The under-analyzer, however, does not share my sentiments. He or she will breeze right by the spouse, partner, kids, or whomever, and head off to the office, only to return home after dark when the day is all but over. He or she will, when confronted, go on and on about providing for the family and how that takes hard work. But the fact is that the environment (the family, etc.) means less than the vision of and commitment to modern success. It’s sad really, but it’s everywhere.

The thing about internalizing is finding the right balance. I’ll admit that I don’t know exactly how to figure it out. But I think I’ve got some useful guidelines. First, I think we need to be realistic and honest when we look at the world around us and when we deal with the people in our lives. That means we have to let the world in when the world is telling us something. But then we have to accept whatever it is and move on. For example, my friend who hates to see runners needs to just accept that there will always be people who work out more often than he does. He needs to either get off the couch or accept that he simply doesn’t have the time to make fitness a priority. Then, when he sees a runner on the road, there’s nothing to contemplate. It’s already settled. When we do this, we keep the environment mostly external, except when it has something new to tell us.

Knowing when the environment has something to tell us really the tough part. But I think it’s easier if we always give our loved ones the benefit of the doubt. That means we can’t ever take them for granted. I try to remember how I treated my wife when I was courting her. Then I compare (and admittedly often contrast) that with how I treat her now. What changed? If anything, she deserves to be treated better now because she has loved me for years and she is the mother of my child. Yet, I’ll sometimes leave out the pleasantries that used to roll so eloquently from my tongue. It’s as if she has, figuratively speaking, taken on the role of a house plant. She is not new and, therefore, she blends into the rest of the environment – the one I don’t internalize. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

I find that simply reminding myself of these little things is a powerful tool. I give the world no influence over my motivation or my emotional state unless it tells me something I don’t already know. But I make an exception where my loved ones are concerned. I try to transport myself back to when our love was new and I was thrilled to shine it. Then, I hung on every word or gesture. I was genuinely preoccupied with the emotional state of my favorite people. The world, at least where they were concerned, was almost directly connected to my emotional hinterlands. Maybe I don’t need to be that gooey these days, but I’m certainly better off if I keep the channels wide open for those for whom I care the most. That way, I never miss the chance to internalize the good times. That’s what it’s all about.

I’m sure we all know people who are afflicted with what is often called “The Napolean Syndrome.” This is a condition where a poor soul’s consciousness is regularly occupied with the suspicion that his height is at the front of the minds of his contemporaries. They are not seeing him for his personality or his talents. They only see his height. He, therefore, compensates by being a jack-ass. The cruel irony in this situation is what I would call an axiom in human discourse – insecurity is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Being short is just one example of not measuring up (forgive the pun) to what is generally held to be the standard in human appearance. If we let our shortcomings (there I go again) get to us, we can become desperately insecure. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Here are three facts that can be particularly useful in these situations.

1. We live in a world in which populations routinely express preferences for attractive people. Corporations spend billions of dollars every year hiring individuals to represent their products. They pay more for attractive people than do for unattractive people. This is not because they have some bias against ordinary-looking people. It is simply a reflection of the fact that the consumers of their ads will pay more attention to a beautiful girl than they will to homely one.
2. The definition of attractive, at least in a general sense, is something that is inherently agreed upon by the majority. If asked to choose the more attractive of the following, a majority (if chosen randomly from society) will choose the former – tall versus short, lean versus fat, full hair versus a bald head, white teeth versus yellow teeth, and symmetrical features versus asymmetrical features.
3. You can’t judge a book by its cover. Appearance does not have anything to do with value as a person. Yes, differing appearances elicit differing reactions from people (see 1 and 2), however this is a reflection on the reactor not the reactee.

So, what to do? The fix is simple. We must all do our best to come to grips with where we stand on the appearance continuum. If I’m a flabby, snaggle-toothed, bald man, I must accept that I’m not likely to get hired to be a spokesmodel. But so what? We must accept that being attractive ostensibly affords individuals a leg up in the game of life. (I say ostensibly because the perks of being a looker don’t always pan out the way one may think they will.) The advantages are no different than the advantages that come from being born smart or rich or musically talented. The fact is that all men (and women) are not created equal. Some emerge from the womb well ahead of others, but far from being something that should be lamented, this is something that must be faced head-on, and the sooner the better.

Appearance-based insecurity is very sad. I suspect that most of us have been there at some time or another. The best of us, however, recognize that our insecurity is irrational and is entirely unproductive. It must be replaced with a new value system, one that is based upon ethics. Being a good person trumps looks every time. On a more practical note, it’s easy to find examples of people who are not particularly attractive but who manage to cast their appearance aside to succeed in life. They focus on their strengths and their talents, knowing that they can easily exceed whatever leg up a pretty face may have provided. Furthermore, they categorically reject people who insist upon placing inappropriate emphasis on appearance. In doing so, these people overcome one of the most deleterious of genetic influences that pervade our society.

This is genetic, you know. The universally agreed upon standards for beauty are easily traced to biological notions of fitness. It isn’t a stretch to suppose that our minds are imbued with genetically-driven tendencies to gravitate toward attractive people. Once again, however, the time has come for humans to recognize when their genes are steering them in the wrong direction. This is a prime example.

So, to the Napoleans of the world, I’d say this – your height is only an issue for you, unless you insist on making it an issue for me. If you continue to doubt your value in my presence, eventually I’ll join you. Your insecurity will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, do us all a favor and figure out what makes you valuable as a person. Then trade on that and leave your height out of it. It’s that simple.

When it comes to getting what we want out of life, there are three kinds of people. There are those who know what they need to do, and they do it. There are also those who know what they need to do, but for whatever reason, they can’t muster the discipline to do it. And then there are those who are too ignorant to know what to do. I would argue that the second group constitutes the lion’s share of people.

It is easy to imagine ourselves enjoying the achievement of our brightest aspirations. This is the stuff of daydreams. What we do with our daydreams is what makes all the difference. Some folks inherently feel that their dreams are achievable. If they are the type to take responsibility for their future, they expand the scope of their musings to include a consideration of the actions required to get where they want to go. They decide if their dreams are worth it and act accordingly. It is no surprise that these are the achievers.

Those who do not achieve their daydreams either cannot conceive of the actions required of them, or they cannot overcome the inertia associated with keeping things as they are. Indeed, non-achievement is most often an inertia problem, and it is also habit forming. The more time that transpires between the realization of goals through disciplined effort, the harder it is to accomplish anything. Some people, many people, go years without setting a goal and working on it until they achieve it. I suspect these patterns are installed early in life.

As a new father, I spend a lot of time observing parents in public with their children. I see lots of very nurturing parents, some too much so. But I also see parents who treat their children as if they are nuisances. It is hard to imagine these people propping their young children up and encouraging them to try to new things. It’s hard to imagine them teaching their kids how to project themselves into the future and figure out how to get what they want. Pushing their children would only add more trouble to the already annoying situation, would it not? So maybe these are the kids who take life as it comes. Maybe in doing so, they eliminate the need for proactivity entirely. They can simply react to the pressures of life as they come. As students, they can do just enough to get by, with their focus exclusively on overcoming immediate hurdles, without any consideration for the merits of getting over them. When they graduate, they get jobs because they need money today. Sadly, without the fresh experience of accomplishment, their daydreams stay just that, dreams. But this is not necessarily a bad news story.

Just as with any skill that must be learned, it is best to start small and work upwards. Those who find themselves in a pattern of non-achievement truly can turn things around. People do it all the time. They need only choose some small, easily achievable goals, and commit to achieving them. For example, one who has, for too long, led a sedentary existence can decide to do 30 push-ups a day for 30 days. This will require that person to work up to doing 30 push-ups and then have the discipline to do them every day for the following month. We’re talking about less than 60 seconds of time every day. It’s simple and the rewards are immense.

The obvious benefit is the good feeling that comes from feeling strong. But the more powerful benefit is the sense of accomplishment that comes from setting a goal and achieving it. It takes work on a daily basis. It takes the willingness to overcome the inertia of daily life, and it feels really good. This too is habit forming. Immediately apparent is the idea that all that stands between today and the realization of one’s daydreams is the execution of specific, knowable actions. However, given these folks’ history of non-achievement, it must be expected that the path will consist mostly of baby steps. But, hey, it’s worth it.

I call attention to these vast generalities not to denigrate anyone, but to lay out a fix for what I see as a very fixable but pervasive problem. To identify the problem is an act of assessment, not judgement. There’s a big difference. To assess is to lay the issue on the table objectively. To judge is to attach negative or positive value upon particular character traits. The latter is a mistake, if for no other reason than the unreliability of incomplete information.

If we had access to a person’s entire history and a view into all of his or her experiences, we might be in a position to offer credible value-based criticisms of that person and how he or she lives life. But we do not. Every person is different, and what we see is never more than half the story. Basically, we don’t have enough information to draw meaningful conclusions about individuals. Therefore, the only one who can judge a person is that person, and if that individual is smart, he or she will use as many objective assessments as possible to get it done right. Maybe this one will help.

I continue to contemplate the importance of status in our caveman days. I think about the earliest days of man’s history, when humans lived nomadic lives, in small groups with close kin. In those days, there couldn’t have been much to build status hierarchies on but talents and skills related to survival. Being a good hunter would matter. Being good at making fancy clothes would not. Now fast forward several millennia.
Survival is no longer the struggle it was. Humans have learned to cooperate, which has led a more efficient use of resources and more insulation from environmental threats. But some things have not changed. It is still the case that those at the top of the hierarchy have access to the best food, shelter, and mates. Status still matters, a lot. However, one may ask, in those days, upon what would a hierarchy be based?

This is an interesting question. Being a good hunter would not necessarily be of interest in a community where the big shots have their food delivered to them. In other words, once a hierarchy was established whereby those at the top could coerce others into providing for their survival, the skills associated with procuring and preparing the necessities of survival would have instantly been commoditized. So what could a status hierarchy in those days be based upon?

Obviously, it could (and most likely would) be based upon warrior skills. One who does well in battle carries the threat of force, which easily translates into status. The hierarchy could also be based upon the possession of desired goods, such as money or land. Rich folks could trade their possessions for food, mates, and protection. What else?

It’s reasonable to suppose that religion could have emerged in these conditions as a new hierarchy. At a time when man’s understanding of his world was continuously daunted by the inexplicable, it isn’t a stretch to suppose that individuals who claimed access to a higher power would have been able to wield it for status. And the bigger and more elaborate the story, the better. The more ornate the ceremony, the better. As long as these individuals could offer some evidence of their connection to something larger than the physical world, the masses would defer. Once again, the bigger and more elaborate the story, the better. This would have been a virtual vacuum for the skilled grifters and con artists of yesteryear. Over time, as more and more of the people bought into their story, these religious figures would have attained more and more status, more and more power.

So, now we have a society with three central hierarchies – the warriors, the rich, and the religious leaders. Fast forward now to the 18th century in France, in the decades prior to the French Revolution. There are three groups who hold all the power – the Royalty, the Nobility, and the Clergy. The Royalty has taken the place of the warrior. In truth, however, the Royalty controls the military, so this hierarchy has merely become more discriminating – there is room for far fewer at the top. The point is that we can see a progression of hierarchies from our earliest days to not so long ago, and that they didn’t change a whole lot for of tens of thousands of years. This points to persistent influence on human behavior, which, of course, is our genes. We can also see that humans eventually came to realize that basing the concentration of power over all people upon these three hierarchies was barbaric and wholly unacceptable.

The philosophers of the Enlightenment codified the perniciousness of this practice, and from their words flowed both the American and French revolutions. So, it is clear that humans are willing and able to extricate the deleterious aspects of genetically-driven human discourse from society. They only need to be made aware of the fact that things can and should be better. And here we are, 200 plus years later, and we still have work to do.

Too many of us are still basing our opinions of ourselves and others upon notions of status, upon notions of in-groups versus out-groups (that is, preferring those we deem like us over those we deem unlike us). These assessments of our social world are largely genetically-driven – after all, we are still working off the mental blueprints of our cave-dwelling ancestors. We have constructed versions of reality that are littered with hierarchies that we deem important. Alas, in most cases, we have not done this rationally.

We have taken as truth what we have been taught from our youngest days. On questionable matters, we have given preference to explanations offered by those we know versus those we do not. We have emulated the beautiful people in our midst. We place emphasis on popularity over ethics, upon wealth over disposition, and upon looks over personality. This has ensured the persistence of erroneous ideas and the resistance to intellectual progress. In short, our genes are still having their way with us, big time. But this is not a bad news story. Some have shaken free of these genetic influences, and it is to these people that we should look for encouragement.

Some have learned to consider everything rationally, and to be aware of, and compensate for, known biases. These people have come to their own conclusions about life and how to live it. They have asserted their individuality upon reality, which has inevitably put them at odds with those who cling to their allegiances. But they stand upright, for they know that truth will never fail them. And some, some are even able to change minds en masse. They are agents of change. They are able to impose their conclusions upon the status quo, thus retiring it, and moving it forward at the same time. This is free thinking, and the possibilities are endless. We should all be so lucky.