The Golden Mean

Studies have shown that over-indulged children have trouble relinquishing their position as the centre of attention, have trouble becoming competent in everyday self-care skills, and have trouble taking responsibility.(1) Furthermore, these over-indulged infants are more materialistic and at greater risk of depression.(2)

But are adults now any better? Are we capable of waiting for things or do we need them instantly? I'm too lazy to argue extensively or convincingly here, so here's my rash assertion: adults at large have now ceased to progress from these over-indulged, infantile babblers and remain trapped in this state of whiny gratification-seeking neediness.

Instead of blindly embarking on this hellish downward spiral (which I am too lazy to detail right now), I offer here some cheap arguments expounding the virtue of self-reliance and self-discipline. Again, the link comes from childhood. Neuroscientist Sam Wang argues that self-disciplined toddlers are more likely to grow into persistent, positive, healthy and satisfied adults.(3) And that's what every adult surely secretly craves: the discipline and self-confidence which arises from being in control of one's feelings and not wallowing. Not in a repressive sense by any means, but simply in a way which prevents us being crippled by reprehensible, criminally-selfish self-pity.

The problem is that the most immediate cultural images of the proponents of combating over-indulgence are those distant, tough-love fathers usually portrayed on television and film as emotionally-repressed, stunted beer drinkers with little regard for the vital need to vent and express oneself, and an inability to look at their children whilst they explain to them why they consistently tell them to manthefuckup. This stereotype damages the importance of the role that tough love has to play in our development.

To prevent this sullying of tough love, whilst practising our self-reliant self-discipline we must also be studiously compassionate to counterbalance the potential isolating individualism of my proposed philosophy. It's a heavy request, and not one certain of success by any stretch, but I am sufficiently optimistic to hope we are capable of differentiating between those who need help and those who actually require the tough love of a benevolent friend or guardian.

As a safeguard, our first priority should always be compassion, but, in close second must be the desire for dignity and self-reliance. The benefits of encouraging self-discipline and responsibility can never be overstated. We can move from the straw strength of a generation raised with a high-altitude emotional safety net and move towards independence and dignity, ensuring always the primacy of compassion, tolerance and warmth.

Now do it.

"I've made such stronger bonds with the people around me since I emptied out all the ugliness in my head."

- Dave McPherson, Obsession is a Young Man's Game

"Sources"

(1) http://www.counseling.org/Resources/Library/VISTAS/vistas05/Vistas05.art18.pdf
(2) http://www.overindulgence.info/Documents/Study%206%20Childhood%20OI%20and%20Life%20Aspiration%20Prelim%20Report.pdf
(3)http://bigthink.com/ideas/40003

Loners

According to the BBC, there is a distinction between being lonely and being a loner. The basic difference is:

A loner gets satisfaction from being alone, someone who is lonely doesn't

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8703173.stm

Which seems simple enough, except for the fact that everyone loves to be alone at some point, unless they're some sort of deranged, psychotic leech who lives off the constant attention of their social betters. And, if that is the sort of person they are, then "their social betters" probably encompasses everyone.

Anyway, regardless of the adequacies of the BBC's magazine section - which after all, is written by a hungover intern to fill the space at the bottom of article templates - the point I'm going to make is that loners have it right, because, statistically, you will not meet anyone who is worth letting down your façades and defences for, and becoming emotionally intimate with. And besides, if you do (I'm still speaking statistically here), they'll already be tied down to a fat, useless stoner. If they're a friend, they'll let you down again and again (and vice-versa, of course). Even if you do find that special someone, statistically (still) you'll end up splitting up with them or divorcing them, or losing them in a bizarre gardening accident. As any economically-minded intellect will tell you, the potential benefits are minimal, and are in no way outweighed by the almost-certain humiliations, miseries and disappointments.

The problem is that humans are idiots, so we still live with that inane, air-headed sense of wonder which makes us crave the miseries of the future even as we recover from the previous endurances. My advice to the "lonely" is to accept the logic of a life independent of the capricious frivolities of human contact and act as though their entire pathetic life was the result of an intricate and successful plan.