Podcast - Episode 0062 - Luck vs Hard Work

18 comments

• 

  • Kylie
  • April 23, 2015 at 9:13 pm

  In answer to the question you guys ended the podcast with, I agree with Joel in that I think certain types tend towards either one of the modes of thinking. Obviously there’s how the person was raised and everything like that, BUT I do see a trend for some of us towards one end of the spectrum or the other.

  For Example
  I am an INTJ. To my credit and dismay, I usually think that I can “think tank” my way through things. “If I could just think of enough possible solutions, then the one perfect one would just show and I’d be able to follow it.” Obviously Batman. As I have noticed, INTJs tend towards arrogance as well, and so it’s very appealing to be able to think that somewhere in my brain or in the data that I’m voraciously seeking after, lies the answer. I just haven’t dug far enough yet.

  On the flip side, I have known quite a few INFJs, and while it would be tempting to clump them in the same category due to the J-ness of them, I would not agree; at least for the undeveloped ones, but even for some of the developed ones. Regarding decisions for/based on other people, it seems that if an INFJ can get consensus and it’s not a completely stupid idea, then they’ll go with that. Batman: work to find out what to do and then do it. However, I’ve noticed that when it comes to themselves, especially the ones who haven’t developed good use of their Ti/Accuracy, they are waiting for….something. What it is depends on the INFJ, in my experience. If they’ve had a particularly traumatic life, then the Spider-Man worldview for decisions for themselves is overwhelming. They don’t believe in themselves enough (and frankly sometimes don’t even like themselves enough) to TRY to catch a break, and therefore end up waiting in the shadows, stewing in their self-dislike and dislike of others (because no one believes that they’re awesome). Obviously, with the more developed ones this is less of the case, but I still find some sort of waiting-ness to them. The phrase “Any action is better than no action” (which totally appeals to me) is not something they’re on board with.

  Lengthy description, but thought I’d share my thoughts since YOU asked for them. ;)

• 

  • Antonia Dodge
  • April 23, 2015 at 4:00 am

  Yeah, but you got her number, right?

  A

• 

  • Jonathan
  • April 23, 2015 at 12:55 am

  Your idea inspired me to use Storm vs. Catwoman for a girl I approached to draw on the street. I used it to ask what kind of superhero she preferred, but even though she didn’t care either way, I had fun with the idea.

• 

  • Jane
  • April 22, 2015 at 1:47 pm

  From the perspective of an INFP, I agree with a lot of the points behind this particular podcast. I think about the concept of creating my own luck regularly. I like to observe the successful (and not) people around me and try to determine what it is about their intellect, persona, morale, etc. that has contributed to their success.

  I think the fact that I don’t value the “spiderman” method whatsoever has actually caused a lot of frustration for me in my life. I feel somewhat guilty coming from a successful family and knowing that it is a powerful factor behind my own personal success. That’s not to say I haven’t worked hard, but there are people in the world who work a lot harder than I do and haven’t seen their payout. Then at the same time, I’m so fortunate and I would be insulting people who don’t have such luck if I denied the opportunities I have had.

  Do you think that my “authenticity” driver has some influence on my resistance to the spiderman method? I’m still learning about the cognitive functions behind the types, but I know that other INFPs I have met seem to have a strong drive to find their own calling in life and not let anyone tell them where they should end up.

  Love the podcast! I have got my ENTP boyfriend hooked on it too, and your ideas have helped us understand ourselves and each other so much better. It helps that your genius types are so similar to ours! :)

• 

  • Jian Wei Gan Lim
  • April 22, 2015 at 2:56 am

  I certainly do appreciate the sentiment of your podcast, and for my part, I do agree that success requires determination and opportunity. I’d go as far as to say that opportunity does consistently happen, but the majority of human beings simply have not achieved a required of skill through determination to take advantage of those opportunities. It’s like discovering the perfect mathematical formulae to solve all of man’s problems. The complexity of such a formulae is so intense that one ultimately wouldn’t know what to do with it, even if it were handed in a silver platter. That said, I believe these everyday opportunities are far more subtle and slip beneath the notice of people distracted by the hustle and bustle of daily life. Perhaps the best way to approach this is to cultivate one’s ability to take advantage of the smaller opportunities so that they know what to expect when a big opportunity manifests, although that is not an approach I hold strongly to.

  That said, I will agree with you on the point you make regarding the contemporary Eastern and Western approach to the idea of ‘hard work’ versus ‘luck’. Having lived in both cultures for some time, I have noticed a very distinct contrast between the East’s regard for government and the West’s regard for government that does seem to exemplify this contrast. For Asians, there is a fundamental understanding that the government is not working in their best interests. The government is not going to supply you with anything to make your life easier, and it’s not going to protect you from the harsh realities of life. That’s the family’s job. The concept of welfare is an entirely foreign concept to Asian societies because it’s assumed that you will have a clan to provide for your needs if you were inconvenienced. If you want the good life, you are going to have to work for it with the understanding that everything you do reflects on the family and vice versa. Westerners on the other hand seem to have a particular amount of dependency on their governments. Not one that is universally disposed to positive feelings towards the governing body mind you, but there certainly is an assumption that the government should act as a safety net for the people. There are inalienable rights that the government is obliged to defend at all costs and even if an individual were to decide to slack off, this ‘higher power’ of sorts will still see that he does not come to any great harm. Certainly, Asians are more likely to assume that a homeless person is in his present condition because he “slacked off and deserves it”, while Westerners are more likely to say “the government failed him”. The concept of diligence is far more pronounced in Asian culture than it is Western culture, and it is there that I can agree with you.

  That said, your comment about the stories that come each culture is interesting as it is an incredibly dynamic area with contrasts and similarities in different aspects. Certainly if we compare Wong Fei Hong to say, the Knights of the Round Table, there is a pronounced dichotomy in diligence and providence. But that is an ineffective comparison because they are ultimately two very different kinds of story that are not entirely analogous with each other. A better comparison for Wong Fei Hong would be Robin Hood who was also a warrior of immense skill who trained himself to be the best. Even the Knights of the Round Table only arguably were only recognised by providence because of their skills. Providence only gave Arthur the right to be king, but then he still had to prove himself in battle to earn those rights.

  If you want to take this to the field of contemporary culture, the dichotomy becomes all the more muddled. Yes, you have your Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragons/ Hero but didn’t Rocky have to bust his ass to become The Italian Stallion? Hell, considering the backdrop of this podcast is based on superheroes, we probably should look at Asian superheroes too. The most popular superheroes are of Japanese origin, and unlike the West, the genre is associated entirely with television rather than comic books. That said there are common tropes such as the use of costumes, and superhuman abilities that make them analogous to each other.

  Now, the most popular superhero franchise in Japan (though not necessarily the most iconic) is the Kamen Rider franchise. It’s been on and off the air sporadically, but ever since 2000, it’s been consistently on air for nearly 16 years with each year creating a new context starring new characters, new protagonists and new concepts. You’d think that given how many variations of the story exists that there would be a healthy mix of characters who gain their abilities through hard work and characters who gain it through luck. But that’s not the case. In fact, out of the 16 shows that have appeared since the 2000s, only one show has the characters explicitly gain the powers through hard work. The source of the powers for the rest of the characters are gained through “radioactive bug bites”. Usually they acquire a device of some sort to access their abilities, but they almost entirely always come across said device by coincidence. It’s not even analogous to someone like say, Iron Man, who built his suit. The protagonists of these shows are never the source of their powers. They literally go from Joe Schmoe one second and become superhuman in the next.

  Going back to the comparison you make between Spider-Man and Batman, the problem with comparing them based on the origins of their powers is that power means very different things for both characters. Taking power as a unique piece of data in and of itself without considering its place in the framework of either character simply doesn’t allow for an effective comparison. In the Chinese and Japanese language, there is a word written as 勉强 (mian qiang in Chinese, benkyo in Japanese). The word is written the same in both languages, but the meaning in both languages is completely different. In Chinese, it means ‘forced’, and in Japanese, it means ‘study’. In broad strokes, one could say there are the same because they are written the same. When you get to the specifics though, these two pieces of data simply mean two different things even while there are superficial similarities.

  Now, if you were dead set on applying this framework using a superhero analogy, the better comparison would be Batman and Green Lantern. Power is treated as a boon in both contexts so that eliminates the difference in meaning behind power between Batman and Spider-Man. As you’ve established, Batman trained to receive his powers, but on the other hand, Hal Jordan is literally handed his powers with no questions asked. Alien crash lands, alien dies, Hal gets spiffy new ring, a legend is born. Done and done.

  If you were to instead want to establish a framework based on Batman’s and Spider-Man’s origins, then the ideal framework would be based on how one processes anxiety, and really, I’d throw Superman into the mix as well. Tying this in with the ways one processes anxiety in the Enneagram, one could argue that Batman externalises anxiety, Spider-Man internalises anxiety, and Superman suppresses anxiety. The death of his parents invokes in Bruce a pronounced hatred of the criminal element. He sees the source of his anxieties as existing externally, and therefore everything he does is to eliminate that source of anxiety. Spider-Man knows he is to blame for his ‘father’s’ death, and so he internalises his anxiety. It’s his fault that he’d lost one of the most important persons in his life, and he is eternally hounded by a debilitating sense of self-hatred. Superman suppresses his anxiety because he knows he cannot afford to show it. He is a symbol for humanity, moreso than Batman, and for him, he HAS to be sure he’s doing the right thing, because he knows that if he falls, humanity loses hope.

  That said, I do appreciate you responding to this and clarifying some of my assumptions. If anything, it certainly has been a rewarding learning experience in shedding further light on the Western approach to various phenomenon, although I maintain that in the contemporary context, the dichotomies are not universally applicable.