Josh, I would say that work is one aspect to a person’s life. For some it is a source of identity, a way to measure one’s material success, a place where people find their main friend base, etc. It has even been a place where people find spouses. In short, jobs do so much that it is often given an outsized portion of the pie in terms of a person’s self-esteem.
One’s relationship with work should be very fluid though. We can’t expect too much of it, as we can’t expect too much of our partners. Marriages are rarely 50/50. They often tip back and forth from 20/80 to 90/10 to 60/40 — and hopefully it will average out. But that’s just in terms of effort and resources. Some of us work hard hoping that the tough days will yield much easier days in the end. Sometimes you have to know whether the job or the system or the partner is just abusing you.
My examples for jobs with heavy investments are doctors and military personnel. Residency and boot camp are baptisms by fire, but there are rewards. But I have also seen suicides in these professions.
I am acutely aware of employee happiness because I used to work for a number of years in Human Resources, and I was the person who did new employee tours and introduced everyone by name. I loved people and wanted everyone to be happy.
The thing about work is that you can always find a new job. Or the same job at a company that is a better fit. Or has better management. Marriage and family relationships are presumed to be forever. Those ties are binding in ways that jobs are not (unless one makes it so by choice). However, there are divorces and family estrangements. Siblings that don’t talk for decades, even until death.
Unfortunately I am running out of time, and I’d like to get back to this. Ping me later if you want to hear more. I think we need to find a way to make all aspects of our life realistically positive. (I am wary of positivity for its own sake, which people are quick to label toxic. I think that may be the wrong word.) We need to pay better attention to each other and care about the good of others. I think the pendulum swing toward “self” is a reaction to abusive systems. But we have tipped almost to cultural narcissism.
I may very well be off base but it’s been a musing I have had for a while. Perhaps it’s from watching my young adult / teen children and their peers trying to navigate this world. The lack of volunteering. The wariness of taking jobs. It’s really different from when I was growing up. They’re interested in protecting their boundaries and exposure to negative stimuli but at the expense of not interacting with the world which is sure to hurt them at least a little but that’s also how we grow.
Excellent discourse, Zina! Yes, I too am wary of overemphasizing "self." Those of us who grew up Gen X learned the other extreme. I agree with you: finding some balance between self-care and care for others is right.
This is precisely the conundrum I pondered with a friend recently while discussing Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich." Ilyich's famous deathbed revelation is that caring for others is a release from his own misery. Focusing too much on his own pain was a kind of hell. But it's really not that simple. You can't just turn into Mother Teresa and give, give, give, without filling up your own well. It works for Ilyich because he dies shortly after, but if he'd survived and tried to live out the Gerasim ethic, he'd have quickly burned out. (There are some natural-born Gerasims, but they are not a realistic model for most of us.)
Your final musings are very smart, and I agree with them. There's so much hypervigilance, and some of it makes sense. Our culture has been defined, in part, by the pandemic and all the isolation and political division that came with it. We aren't as safe in public spaces now as we were growing up. That's a fact, and young people are right to be wary. The stakes also seem higher. You don't go to college on a whim anymore. People can't buy homes easily. When life choices seem so weighted with risk, I think it breeds some of this bunker mentality? I'd like to see a world in which young people could roll the dice now and then without feeling like their whole lives are at stake. I think it would be easier to embrace civic belonging if we could somehow reduce risk, make the world feel less red in tooth and claw.
You raise such valuable points here Zina!! I couldn’t agree more! Especially when it comes to the young. This is certainly a challenge that I see, and work against as a parent.
Work can meet the ratio test with this caveat: you have to credit work with the avoided negativity of the counterfactual of not having work, both the negative material implications of that lack as well as the absence of feeling productive.
So if you count the material and spiritual rewards of work even if the day to day does not meet the ratio, then I say yes.
That's helpful, David -- thanks. Although one could run that logic to the extreme of always feeling like it could be worse, which I'm not sure is a sustainable mindset. In times of crisis, you find yourself thinking that you'll be happy just to get your life back. But then, of course, once you have your minimum needs met, you want to climb Maslow's pyramid and really thrive.
I'd also say that the counterfactual you describe is precisely what traps people in exploitative academic roles. They tell themselves that they're lucky to have won the job lottery, that those poor adjuncts have it worse (not to mention all the PhDs who have no work at all), and they catastrophize the prospect of changing careers. So sometimes "avoided negativity" can become its own trap, its own form of paralysis.
Yes!! We always want more, but it’s worth asking if that ‘’more” is worth it, at what cost, and if it’s really meaningful. For me, the answer usually comes from the body, not the brain. And I have learned to listen to it.
Although they could find freedom from that job misery by following your example and the examples of all the other recovering academics you've featured and interviewed.
Guess I'm at the age where I recognize there is no formula or one size fits all answer to the question about work and the 5 to 1 ratio. For me, it requires a more intuitive and critically self-aware mindset that can self-regulate. Still not easy, but I'm more forgiving of myself.
Forgiving is good. Intuition, too. I think you and Zina are right that some of this requires a long view and not just short-term reflection. Even so, I think the cultural shift is against deferring to much gratification. Which can be a healthy shift if not taken to an extreme.
First, Josh, dang, you look so handsome in that photo by Savita! Second, how exciting that you get to travel to Prague again, this time with your aunt and uncle. That sounds like it will be a special trip.
As for work, this is an interesting idea but I need a bit more information. Are we defining work as simply the form of employment that contributes to the GDP? And is the 1:5 ratio strictly concerning that employment? In short, what counts as work? I ask because I am almost always working, to be honest. Sometimes for money, sometimes indirectly for money (writing) and sometimes because it needs to get done. Some of the time, during all of these kinds of work, it is drudgery. And some of the time -- again, with every one of these kinds of work -- I forget I'm "working" and the money or lack of money doesn't matter because whatever is the focus of my labor either absorbs me completely in a Zen chop-wood-carry-water kind of way or fills me with joy.
Great question about work. I suppose I'm aiming for a better mix of labor that I find purposeful and that is a livelihood. But you're right, too, that cooking dinner and picking up after my kids is also work. In the case of domestic labor, the value of time with my kids greatly outweighs the negatives and frustrations (most of the time). And I'm mindful of aiming for a positivity override with them, too.
I think what I'd like to achieve is something more like this with work for pay: "I forget I'm "working" and the money or lack of money doesn't matter because whatever is the focus of my labor either absorbs me completely in a Zen chop-wood-carry-water kind of way or fills me with joy." And by thinking about Gottman's ratio this week, I've been aiming for a more precise calculus than "some of the time." Because "some of the time" typically defaults to a 50/50 mindset. If it's mostly a wash between positive and negative, we think we're good. Gottman suggests that we need to be more intentional about tilting the scale way in the other direction. Taking such an inventory is helpful, I think, even if we're doing pretty well, or middling, as you might put it. But for my part, it's a way of thinking about how to keep climbing out of the rubble -- keep aiming higher than mere survival.
Great summer plans and website plans! I’m inclined not to apply the 5:1 ratio to paying work, mostly because to make a living we encounter many relationships that do not have the (supposed) reciprocity of marriage. To expect a 5:1 positive ratio at work is to assume too much control. This gets to your question of privilege. Some people feel they do have that level of control over who they interact with and how; I’d expect that most do not. Just thinkin’ aloud. I could be persuaded otherwise.
From other comments, including Imola's and David's, I can see how the mindset matters quite a lot. If the work itself isn't enjoyable, the rewards or alternatives might be. I do think it's possible for work to be an overriding source of joy, but I get what you're saying about how pay complicates things, and some of what we do for money is just necessary. In that case, the ratio might still be useful, if only as a reminder that serious depletion at work requires some extraordinary replenishment.
I expect that most of us think that 1:1 can get us through, or if we're really tough, we just need a few good things now and then to keep going. Or, as in my ridiculous therapist, you can overcome a tsunami of negativity with mindset alone. Not so, at least not for me.
I've perhaps worried the bone to the nub this week, but the principle of the ratio -- that the goodness override has to be overwhelming to hold -- might apply at the micro and macro levels. Or, as Zina suggested, across time (so long as you're not deferring all your joy to heaven or something).
I don't know if this 5:1 ratio balance is attainable, but it is something to aspire to? If you are lucky enough to be doing a work that you enjoy. When I had to supplement my income with cleaning and painting, I can't say that I was having fun. But even then, I tried to focus on what it gave me: my freedom, and self-worth after a separation, as well as the pride in transforming dull, cluttered spaces into beautiful clean spaces. Now with a writing grant I am able to focus on what I love doing the most, which is writing. Not a day goes by without me feeling extremely grateful, even if the amount itself is not that much. For me, it's everything. I rise every morning with eagerness to tackle the keyboard, and even when the writing itself is challenging, I'm having so much fun. And yes, I do exercise, practice yoga and meditation, eat healthy, and spend quality time with my daughters. But - I think the most important thing to remember (for me) is that some days will be/feel better than others. Some days this ideal ratio will feel very possible, other days, not so much. And we must try to be compassionate with ourselves when it doesn't. This trying to be 'productive' all the time can be a trap too.
Excellent points! I don't equate productivity with "good," necessarily. And the ratio is a reminder, at least to me, that mindset alone is not powerful enough to override a negativity imbalance forever. Finding work that gives more than it takes, as you have with your grant (congrats!), allows even challenging things to fall in that gratitude column. If there are too many days that don't feel great, then maybe it's a sign that the scale needs calibrating. I also like the ratio as a reminder that we have more control over our inputs, not just over our reactions? (And that health requires way more positive things, not just an equal distribution of positive/negative)
It's possible that men are more prone to punishing themselves with work, wearing themselves down to the nub because that is the only model they have for self-worth. Some colleagues and I referred to this as "time macho" (who is the last person to leave the office). I still have to give myself permission to see enjoyable work as actual work :)
I'm glad to hear you have so many plans in the works! The online store sounds like an interesting idea: let me know if it works with the essays. This summer I'm going to expand on a few essays and self-publish them, or plan to while I finish my dissertation next year. Haven't developed the plan beyond "shoot a flaming arrow in the dark" as of yet. A makeover might be useful on my end as well if I can detach myself sentimentally from the CA grizzly. Anyway, good luck with all of them!
For your research on the 1948 coup, if you're looking for more historical insight I recommend Zbynek Zeman's book The Masaryks. In addition to all the info it has on the Founding Father of Czechoslovakia, T.G. Masaryk - whose legacy was overthrown and suppressed in 1948 - it's also the best place in English to learn about his son Jan Masaryk. One of the crucial parts of the 1948 coup was the defenestration of Jan Masaryk. On top of that, based on all the posts you've read I think you'll also find Masaryk to be an admirable figure on the whole. He was a genuine "philosopher king." Either way, I'd love to check out that memoir when it comes out. 1945-1948 is an odd little period in Czech history.
Czechoslovakia: The State That Failed, by Mary Heimann, is another good one.
Regarding the magic relationship ratio, I think there should be a separation between positive/negative feedback in life from friends, loved ones, co-workers, assholes you meet on the street, etc. And online, where the entire social media industry is designed for validation, excreting dopamine and getting the highest numbers. If someone doesn't care whether they get a million fans, social media still manipulates them into caring. Increasing the overall negativity of the experience. One can have two hundred devoted fans, but it's still 200 compared to the other guy who has a million. Because we equate numbers with truth, our first impulse is to view the million as a positive and our smaller number as a negative. We can intellectualize, engage in mental gymnastics and tell ourselves we're better off with our 200 devoted fans who care more about us than the million does the bigger fish. But do we truly believe it when standing in a digital crowd of people who do judge quality through quantity and have the dopamine to show for it? For that reason, if this ratio can apply to just us and not a marriage I think it can only apply in our immediate lives. Not digitally or en masse.
Excellent point about avoiding comparisons, which can turns positives into negatives! Really appreciate those leads, too. I need to pack some good reading along with me to Prague. I was reading Havel there last time, and it made the experience so much richer. Perhaps you recall from one of my posts two years ago that I had the good fortune of befriending an ambassador who gave me a tour of some important rooms, including the bathroom from which Masaryk was thrown.
That's right, you did mention that. Very cool! Gonna add a reply today or tomorrow to our conversation with Zina. I'll add a list of some good Czech fiction to consider if that'll be interesting to you.
Josh, I would say that work is one aspect to a person’s life. For some it is a source of identity, a way to measure one’s material success, a place where people find their main friend base, etc. It has even been a place where people find spouses. In short, jobs do so much that it is often given an outsized portion of the pie in terms of a person’s self-esteem.
One’s relationship with work should be very fluid though. We can’t expect too much of it, as we can’t expect too much of our partners. Marriages are rarely 50/50. They often tip back and forth from 20/80 to 90/10 to 60/40 — and hopefully it will average out. But that’s just in terms of effort and resources. Some of us work hard hoping that the tough days will yield much easier days in the end. Sometimes you have to know whether the job or the system or the partner is just abusing you.
My examples for jobs with heavy investments are doctors and military personnel. Residency and boot camp are baptisms by fire, but there are rewards. But I have also seen suicides in these professions.
I am acutely aware of employee happiness because I used to work for a number of years in Human Resources, and I was the person who did new employee tours and introduced everyone by name. I loved people and wanted everyone to be happy.
The thing about work is that you can always find a new job. Or the same job at a company that is a better fit. Or has better management. Marriage and family relationships are presumed to be forever. Those ties are binding in ways that jobs are not (unless one makes it so by choice). However, there are divorces and family estrangements. Siblings that don’t talk for decades, even until death.
Unfortunately I am running out of time, and I’d like to get back to this. Ping me later if you want to hear more. I think we need to find a way to make all aspects of our life realistically positive. (I am wary of positivity for its own sake, which people are quick to label toxic. I think that may be the wrong word.) We need to pay better attention to each other and care about the good of others. I think the pendulum swing toward “self” is a reaction to abusive systems. But we have tipped almost to cultural narcissism.
I may very well be off base but it’s been a musing I have had for a while. Perhaps it’s from watching my young adult / teen children and their peers trying to navigate this world. The lack of volunteering. The wariness of taking jobs. It’s really different from when I was growing up. They’re interested in protecting their boundaries and exposure to negative stimuli but at the expense of not interacting with the world which is sure to hurt them at least a little but that’s also how we grow.
Excellent discourse, Zina! Yes, I too am wary of overemphasizing "self." Those of us who grew up Gen X learned the other extreme. I agree with you: finding some balance between self-care and care for others is right.
This is precisely the conundrum I pondered with a friend recently while discussing Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich." Ilyich's famous deathbed revelation is that caring for others is a release from his own misery. Focusing too much on his own pain was a kind of hell. But it's really not that simple. You can't just turn into Mother Teresa and give, give, give, without filling up your own well. It works for Ilyich because he dies shortly after, but if he'd survived and tried to live out the Gerasim ethic, he'd have quickly burned out. (There are some natural-born Gerasims, but they are not a realistic model for most of us.)
Your final musings are very smart, and I agree with them. There's so much hypervigilance, and some of it makes sense. Our culture has been defined, in part, by the pandemic and all the isolation and political division that came with it. We aren't as safe in public spaces now as we were growing up. That's a fact, and young people are right to be wary. The stakes also seem higher. You don't go to college on a whim anymore. People can't buy homes easily. When life choices seem so weighted with risk, I think it breeds some of this bunker mentality? I'd like to see a world in which young people could roll the dice now and then without feeling like their whole lives are at stake. I think it would be easier to embrace civic belonging if we could somehow reduce risk, make the world feel less red in tooth and claw.
Yes to this as well! Clearly a much broader conversation with many nuances. But so important!
You raise such valuable points here Zina!! I couldn’t agree more! Especially when it comes to the young. This is certainly a challenge that I see, and work against as a parent.
What a powerhouse answer! I see what you do in your last paragraph, and it concerns me, too.
Work can meet the ratio test with this caveat: you have to credit work with the avoided negativity of the counterfactual of not having work, both the negative material implications of that lack as well as the absence of feeling productive.
So if you count the material and spiritual rewards of work even if the day to day does not meet the ratio, then I say yes.
That's helpful, David -- thanks. Although one could run that logic to the extreme of always feeling like it could be worse, which I'm not sure is a sustainable mindset. In times of crisis, you find yourself thinking that you'll be happy just to get your life back. But then, of course, once you have your minimum needs met, you want to climb Maslow's pyramid and really thrive.
I'd also say that the counterfactual you describe is precisely what traps people in exploitative academic roles. They tell themselves that they're lucky to have won the job lottery, that those poor adjuncts have it worse (not to mention all the PhDs who have no work at all), and they catastrophize the prospect of changing careers. So sometimes "avoided negativity" can become its own trap, its own form of paralysis.
Yes!! We always want more, but it’s worth asking if that ‘’more” is worth it, at what cost, and if it’s really meaningful. For me, the answer usually comes from the body, not the brain. And I have learned to listen to it.
Although they could find freedom from that job misery by following your example and the examples of all the other recovering academics you've featured and interviewed.
Yes -- which is why I'm posing these questions. Just saying that the counterfactual you mention has a Janus face.
Yes, David. I think you’ve framed it well.
Guess I'm at the age where I recognize there is no formula or one size fits all answer to the question about work and the 5 to 1 ratio. For me, it requires a more intuitive and critically self-aware mindset that can self-regulate. Still not easy, but I'm more forgiving of myself.
Forgiving is good. Intuition, too. I think you and Zina are right that some of this requires a long view and not just short-term reflection. Even so, I think the cultural shift is against deferring to much gratification. Which can be a healthy shift if not taken to an extreme.
First, Josh, dang, you look so handsome in that photo by Savita! Second, how exciting that you get to travel to Prague again, this time with your aunt and uncle. That sounds like it will be a special trip.
As for work, this is an interesting idea but I need a bit more information. Are we defining work as simply the form of employment that contributes to the GDP? And is the 1:5 ratio strictly concerning that employment? In short, what counts as work? I ask because I am almost always working, to be honest. Sometimes for money, sometimes indirectly for money (writing) and sometimes because it needs to get done. Some of the time, during all of these kinds of work, it is drudgery. And some of the time -- again, with every one of these kinds of work -- I forget I'm "working" and the money or lack of money doesn't matter because whatever is the focus of my labor either absorbs me completely in a Zen chop-wood-carry-water kind of way or fills me with joy.
You're too kind, Carol! Savita is great.
Great question about work. I suppose I'm aiming for a better mix of labor that I find purposeful and that is a livelihood. But you're right, too, that cooking dinner and picking up after my kids is also work. In the case of domestic labor, the value of time with my kids greatly outweighs the negatives and frustrations (most of the time). And I'm mindful of aiming for a positivity override with them, too.
I think what I'd like to achieve is something more like this with work for pay: "I forget I'm "working" and the money or lack of money doesn't matter because whatever is the focus of my labor either absorbs me completely in a Zen chop-wood-carry-water kind of way or fills me with joy." And by thinking about Gottman's ratio this week, I've been aiming for a more precise calculus than "some of the time." Because "some of the time" typically defaults to a 50/50 mindset. If it's mostly a wash between positive and negative, we think we're good. Gottman suggests that we need to be more intentional about tilting the scale way in the other direction. Taking such an inventory is helpful, I think, even if we're doing pretty well, or middling, as you might put it. But for my part, it's a way of thinking about how to keep climbing out of the rubble -- keep aiming higher than mere survival.
Great summer plans and website plans! I’m inclined not to apply the 5:1 ratio to paying work, mostly because to make a living we encounter many relationships that do not have the (supposed) reciprocity of marriage. To expect a 5:1 positive ratio at work is to assume too much control. This gets to your question of privilege. Some people feel they do have that level of control over who they interact with and how; I’d expect that most do not. Just thinkin’ aloud. I could be persuaded otherwise.
From other comments, including Imola's and David's, I can see how the mindset matters quite a lot. If the work itself isn't enjoyable, the rewards or alternatives might be. I do think it's possible for work to be an overriding source of joy, but I get what you're saying about how pay complicates things, and some of what we do for money is just necessary. In that case, the ratio might still be useful, if only as a reminder that serious depletion at work requires some extraordinary replenishment.
I expect that most of us think that 1:1 can get us through, or if we're really tough, we just need a few good things now and then to keep going. Or, as in my ridiculous therapist, you can overcome a tsunami of negativity with mindset alone. Not so, at least not for me.
I've perhaps worried the bone to the nub this week, but the principle of the ratio -- that the goodness override has to be overwhelming to hold -- might apply at the micro and macro levels. Or, as Zina suggested, across time (so long as you're not deferring all your joy to heaven or something).
I don't know if this 5:1 ratio balance is attainable, but it is something to aspire to? If you are lucky enough to be doing a work that you enjoy. When I had to supplement my income with cleaning and painting, I can't say that I was having fun. But even then, I tried to focus on what it gave me: my freedom, and self-worth after a separation, as well as the pride in transforming dull, cluttered spaces into beautiful clean spaces. Now with a writing grant I am able to focus on what I love doing the most, which is writing. Not a day goes by without me feeling extremely grateful, even if the amount itself is not that much. For me, it's everything. I rise every morning with eagerness to tackle the keyboard, and even when the writing itself is challenging, I'm having so much fun. And yes, I do exercise, practice yoga and meditation, eat healthy, and spend quality time with my daughters. But - I think the most important thing to remember (for me) is that some days will be/feel better than others. Some days this ideal ratio will feel very possible, other days, not so much. And we must try to be compassionate with ourselves when it doesn't. This trying to be 'productive' all the time can be a trap too.
Excellent points! I don't equate productivity with "good," necessarily. And the ratio is a reminder, at least to me, that mindset alone is not powerful enough to override a negativity imbalance forever. Finding work that gives more than it takes, as you have with your grant (congrats!), allows even challenging things to fall in that gratitude column. If there are too many days that don't feel great, then maybe it's a sign that the scale needs calibrating. I also like the ratio as a reminder that we have more control over our inputs, not just over our reactions? (And that health requires way more positive things, not just an equal distribution of positive/negative)
It's possible that men are more prone to punishing themselves with work, wearing themselves down to the nub because that is the only model they have for self-worth. Some colleagues and I referred to this as "time macho" (who is the last person to leave the office). I still have to give myself permission to see enjoyable work as actual work :)
I think we are in agreement:)
I'm glad to hear you have so many plans in the works! The online store sounds like an interesting idea: let me know if it works with the essays. This summer I'm going to expand on a few essays and self-publish them, or plan to while I finish my dissertation next year. Haven't developed the plan beyond "shoot a flaming arrow in the dark" as of yet. A makeover might be useful on my end as well if I can detach myself sentimentally from the CA grizzly. Anyway, good luck with all of them!
For your research on the 1948 coup, if you're looking for more historical insight I recommend Zbynek Zeman's book The Masaryks. In addition to all the info it has on the Founding Father of Czechoslovakia, T.G. Masaryk - whose legacy was overthrown and suppressed in 1948 - it's also the best place in English to learn about his son Jan Masaryk. One of the crucial parts of the 1948 coup was the defenestration of Jan Masaryk. On top of that, based on all the posts you've read I think you'll also find Masaryk to be an admirable figure on the whole. He was a genuine "philosopher king." Either way, I'd love to check out that memoir when it comes out. 1945-1948 is an odd little period in Czech history.
Czechoslovakia: The State That Failed, by Mary Heimann, is another good one.
Regarding the magic relationship ratio, I think there should be a separation between positive/negative feedback in life from friends, loved ones, co-workers, assholes you meet on the street, etc. And online, where the entire social media industry is designed for validation, excreting dopamine and getting the highest numbers. If someone doesn't care whether they get a million fans, social media still manipulates them into caring. Increasing the overall negativity of the experience. One can have two hundred devoted fans, but it's still 200 compared to the other guy who has a million. Because we equate numbers with truth, our first impulse is to view the million as a positive and our smaller number as a negative. We can intellectualize, engage in mental gymnastics and tell ourselves we're better off with our 200 devoted fans who care more about us than the million does the bigger fish. But do we truly believe it when standing in a digital crowd of people who do judge quality through quantity and have the dopamine to show for it? For that reason, if this ratio can apply to just us and not a marriage I think it can only apply in our immediate lives. Not digitally or en masse.
Excellent point about avoiding comparisons, which can turns positives into negatives! Really appreciate those leads, too. I need to pack some good reading along with me to Prague. I was reading Havel there last time, and it made the experience so much richer. Perhaps you recall from one of my posts two years ago that I had the good fortune of befriending an ambassador who gave me a tour of some important rooms, including the bathroom from which Masaryk was thrown.
That's right, you did mention that. Very cool! Gonna add a reply today or tomorrow to our conversation with Zina. I'll add a list of some good Czech fiction to consider if that'll be interesting to you.