Balance in Everything, Everything in Balance
If you look back through the history of human thinking and human stories, you will see a recurring theme: duality. This versus that. Yin versus yang. Order versus chaos. Excess versus discipline. Work versus play. Liberal and open-minded versus conservative and traditional. Masculine versus feminine. Protagonist versus antagonist.
The universe is an extremely complicated place, and of course it can’t be simply divided into neatly opposing forces all the time. Not everything is a perfectly Newtonian “this idea versus that equal and opposite other idea” kind of thing.
But the reason humans are so obsessed with duality is because it’s a ridiculously useful tool. A simplifying mechanism. It helps us make sense of our behaviors. It helps us understand and seek the concept of balance — both within and without. Duality gives us a framework for understanding what we see (and want to see) in both ourselves and the world around us.
Here are a few interesting places where duality, and the subsequent need for balance, show up in life.
Rules versus exceptions
Most things in life can be boiled down to general rules, and those general rules can be applied generously to a lot of different situations. But there is no rule without its exception. Whether it be in the classroom, or a social situation, or politics, or economics, or even physics — every rule has those select few places where it doesn’t apply or shouldn’t be followed. A few examples:
“You should always trust people… except where you definitely shouldn’t.”
“The rules of economics apply… except when the market goes into panic and then they definitely don’t.”
“My father was always hard on me. But there was one time when I really needed him not to be. And he wasn’t. And it was wonderful.”
“Always be honest, always… except actually don’t, because then nobody will like you.”
You might say that real wisdom is knowing a lot of rules, and simultaneously knowing a lot of exceptions. And being really good at seeing when something is an exception in real time.
Who you are versus who is socially acceptable
You should be yourself. Be as weird as you want. Be creative, quirky, and unique. Have your own sense of humor and be honest about it.
But there will always be a time and place to conform or restrain yourself. To do what makes you look professional and selfless; to silence what you want in favor of what is most useful for everyone.
Psychologists say that if you don’t properly socialize a child by the time they’re about 4 years old, it’s bad bad news. Because they might be stuck that way — stuck as a person who mentally and emotionally does not understand how to fit in. Stuck as an outcast or an abuser. Children have to learn how to play nice, to balance cooperation with competition, and to silence their own desires sometimes so that everyone can have fun.
Children have to learn how to fit in — because even the most “special” child is not above the need to have friends. If you don’t have any friends in this life, good luck. If you never get invited into people’s lives, it’s probably because you’re not socialized properly. You never learned how to play games that are good for other people along with yourself.
Show that you can restrain yourself while also being individual and interesting… and people will like you and trust you. That’s good news.
Intentional impostor syndrome
Separate but related: it’s a good thing to be an impostor. You have to make other people (and yourself) believe in a character if you’re going to make any progress in life.
There’s a scene in Ocean’s Eleven where Brad Pitt is teaching Matt Damon how to act out a certain character. Matt Damon is going to con a casino owner into leaving himself vulnerable to theft. Pitt tells Damon, “Be specific but not memorable. Be funny, but don’t make him laugh. He’s gotta like you, and then forget you the moment you’ve left his sight.” They are cultivating a personality that Damon will then adopt as his own.
Obviously this is an extreme example, and we shouldn’t be conning people, but it’s a useful exercise in the building of a character.
Being honestly who you are is absolutely essential. But having an idea of who you want to be, and then acting that out, is just as essential. You need both.
For example: imagine there’s a person you have in mind that you want to be. You want to put in the work to be that person. That person listens attentively to others, and speaks only when he has something important to say. People rely on this person for thoughtful input. Well… how else can you become this person other than by going against your own nature and deliberately speaking less?
If you want to be the kind of person who has good conversations with people at the coffee shop, how else are you going to become that person other than by acting like you already are? Start doing it, and give yourself that reputation to live up to.
Don’t manipulate people for selfish gain — but know who you want to be, and act it out. It’s not about asking for a reputation you haven’t earned; it’s realizing that the best way to change as a person is to evolve by conscious choice. It would be ridiculous to go all the way through life without ever forcing yourself to become someone new.
Confidence versus curiosity
The most “highly educated” people are often the hardest to communicate with. Because they are utterly convinced that they are right — especially in their own domain of study.
There’s a Warren Buffett quote I really like: “What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact.”
For example, if a doctor is “certain” that he knows what is going on with his patient, it’s very unlikely that he’ll change his mind if you bring him new information. Or show him new test results. He’s either going to ignore that information, or he’s going to squeeze and twist and warp it until it fits what he already thought. Because his mind is made up and he refuses to be wrong where he insists that he is an expert.
This is the same reason economists never change: they insist that their particular school of economics has an answer for everything that could ever happen. Which is a ridiculous claim.
“Uneducated” people often have an advantage here. Because their minds are nimble. A person who simply reads all the time and self-educates is probably better at developing nuanced and reasonable opinions for the real world, because they have no fragile sense of earned expertise to protect.
The people you should listen to offer good opinions when they have one, and ask a lot of questions when they don’t. You have to form strong opinions and be confident in them, while also being a lifelong student and looking for ways you’re wrong. Because being wrong is inevitable.
There’s a certain amount of bullshit you have to put up with
People are always going to be full of shit. And, alas, there’s nothing you can do about it.
Jobs are full of shit, bosses are full of shit. Investors are full of shit, and the executives whose companies they invest in are full of shit. Almost everyone around you is full of shit. And I don’t just mean they lie and cheat and get away with too much; I mean they are also full of unnecessary, distracting problems. And they deserve a lot of them (as we all do). And their solutions are often even worse.
And their endless stream of distracting, tiring bullshit threatens to push past the boundaries of what you can tolerate.
Sometimes you have to ignore your own boundaries just so you can survive. Sad but true. Even your strongest virtues and your deepest beliefs have to cover their eyes sometimes. Just so that you don’t spend your whole life battling what is clearly and utterly bullshit. Strategically tolerated bullshit is a virtue of its own.
But you do have to have boundaries, and if your gut is telling you that you can no longer tolerate the transgressions, you have to listen. No relationship is perfect, but good relationships always have boundaries. Always.
Arrogance versus shame
Something I osmosed while reading Nietzsche was about creative people. (I’m open to feedback on this particular idea, because I haven’t finished thinking through it. In fact he never even explicitly said this. It’s something I read out of his tone.)
For context: a recurring theme in Thus Spoke Zarathustra is about creative people versus the masses. Creative people tend to break away from the pack and lead with ideas. They are the people who make their own virtues. They are leaders, thinkers, artists, people who do something different. Maybe the word for that is shepherd. An arrogant word, but that’s kind of the point.
Thinkers and creators have to be arrogant. They have to be self-involved enough to think their own ideas are worthwhile. And I don’t mean arrogant as in talking down to people… although, kind of. They have to believe that they have a take on reality that is interesting or useful enough to be worth spreading. Assertively spreading. Creators have to be arrogant enough to place their ideas on other people’s plates and say “here, eat this, it will be good for you.” And they have to be arrogant enough to think they deserve to be rewarded for it.
But they also have to be ashamed at their own arrogance. They have to be ashamed that such a dynamic should even have to exist in the first place.
The problem is, a good creator doesn’t want to be special. He wishes everyone else thought for themselves and developed their own good ideas. He is ashamed of the human condition that even makes his input needed or wanted at all. You might even say a great creator’s ultimate wish is to be rendered unnecessary.
Conversely, a bad creator revels in being necessary — because then there is profit and power and ego to be had. A bad creator pretends to strengthen, but deliberately keeps those following him weak.
It’s the same thing a good father aims at: to be so good at preparing his children for the world, with virtue and discipline and poise, that he himself becomes unnecessary. They have learned what they needed from him and can get by without him. Although of course that’s not what he wants. He still wants his children to need and want him forever. Because that feels better.
Most creators grow up ashamed and lost. They know they’re different, and they hate it. Then they reach a point of Dunning-Kruger arrogance in young adulthood. Then, slowly, the arrogance and shame hopefully come into balance and their creativity becomes useful.
It’s a proud place to be, but also a very sad and vulnerable place to be. Maybe that’s why there’s a Twenty Seven Club. Because those artists, as they were getting rich, hated every minute of it and wished they were uninteresting. Because that would be easier.
—
Thus spoke the square man.
As always, feedback is welcome.
Drink some water and don’t be full of shit.
JDR
“I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.” - Alexander the Great
If you want to keep reading, here’s one of my favorite Square Man pieces: Being Limited Equals Being Free.