An irony when someone’s creative work becomes recognized after many years of toil and advertising: their work that was previously ignored did not change. It did not suddenly “become” great simultaneously with its rise to notoriety. Therefore, it was previously great but just not recognized.

With the idea for this blog post, naturally I searched online and found articles citing such people as Herman Melville, Franz Kafka, and Johann Bach (for musical compositions) as people who were only acclaimed posthumously. While Kafka did not make an effort to publish his writing (and even wanted it destroyed upon his death), others do publish and advertise their work. We would think that great works would generate a “word of mouth” effect where the initial small audience is so impressed that they share it with others. It seems logical that great work is timeless and will naturally be recognized in concordant magnitude and expediency with its worth. Yet, in practice this is so genuinely uncommon that unrecognized greatness (and lauded trash) might be proposed as a general rule rather than exception.

Search on unrecognized greatness, hidden genius, etc. and you will naturally find a lot of platitudes about perseverance, fortitude, and personal worth. These platitudes may do more harm than good. It’s easy to assure ourselves that others simply do not recognize the great work we are doing. Yet, what is great work for one might be mere child’s play for another. The former individual is not discredited; she may have unique and ingenious creations to make, from a different perspective than the latter. However, frequent, conscious consideration of how she should use her time and focus her energy is necessary to make these contributions. The 10,000 hour rule comes to mind. You cannot get good at most things by daydreaming, sporadic bursts of effort, or endless deferment.

Compare Franz Liszt to the local piano teacher, and we could definitely conclude the piano teacher should just stop trying. Yet, while what is peak performance for a hard-working muggle might barely be a blip on the radar for a masterful wizard, that does not mean individuals of lesser talent are anywhere close to their personal bests. Albeit, the value we place on being recognized and reaching peak performance varies across individuals and cultures. Like an attraction to redheads or a hatred of celery, we may even be unable to rationalize or counteract our desire for fame. Recognizing and dealing with it might be a worthier course than suppression.

People experiencing unrecognized greatness naturally get a lot of really horrible feedback encouraging them to destroy the aspects that make their work quirky, tantalizing, or otherwise useful. “I really couldn’t relate to your [story / photograph / song] at all” is possibly more of an admission of the reviewer’s divergent taste (or ineptitude) than useful feedback. However, hearing enough garbage without commensurate uplifting testimonials is bound to hurt one’s self-image and might be discouraging or prompt changes that turn unrecognized greatness into mainstream trash. In a marriage and relationships workshop at University of Central Florida, I learned from Yamille Aponte that it takes 5 or possibly even 25 nice comments to make up for just 1 disparaging comment to your partner. Hearing a lot of so-called “constructive” criticism can really do more harm than good. As much as we humans like to think we are continuously objective, is our objectivity continuously foiled by elementary psychological experiments. Worse still is the person critiquing you thinks they are doing you a “favor” and walks away with a dose of good feelings. Even benevolent feedback frequently stymies unrecognized greatness. For instance, requests to simplify and streamline a work are common. Editors love to cut out the best parts of stories. Consider that trying to appeal to a larger audience may backfire and make you appealing to no one.

There are many ways we can operationally define greatness. We could say a work is great if it immune to criticism, i.e. performing a musical piece with complete technical accuracy (let’s say a lot of complex emotions are included so it cannot be criticized as robotic or some other drivel). We could define a work’s greatness based on how many man-months of attention it commands: Candy Crush Saga is really great because look how much time people spend on it. We can define a work’s greatness based on the opinions of “experts” in the field. We can define a work’s greatness based on revenues generated, popularity among its target audience, dedication of its fans, or comparative analysis with similar works.

In American culture, greatness is probably mostly commonly defined merely by quantity of recognition. If a lot of people have something to say about what you do, whether positive or negative, then you are great. In a recent psychology course at University of Central Florida, I learned from Valerie Sims that children who are “isolates” (completed ignored) in 5th grade are far more likely to be depressed and suicidal in later life, compared even to peers who are universally hated (but acknowledged). Thus, one might conclude that “recognized badness” is universally superior to unrecognized greatness. Motivational figures encourage us to “fail” big—repeatedly, without fear or shame. Yet “trying too hard” versus “not trying hard enough” remains a delicate balance. If we are to optimally use our time, clearly we must fail “right”—in a way that helps us learn and improve. Unfortunately, failures can also lead to type II errors (false negatives), where we erroneously believe we have eliminated a fruitless path. These variables and more can morph future iterations of our work from unrecognized greatness to unrecognized mediocrity. Therefore, what we “learn” from failures is damaging if we tag something as a dead end when it would actually work if we tried a different approach. Sadly, our time is highly limited (350,000 waking hours in a typical adult life) and we do not have time to comprehensively manipulate every variable.

As an aside, what I dub as unrecognized greatness can also be under-recognized greatness. Once again, we are encountering one of the shortcomings of the English language where it is impossible to present nuanced yet compelling vernacular. For example, I have been annoyed lately when people say things such as “not all people do [some bad behavior].” With a semblance of objectivity, such phraseology is completely meaningless! It literally means the range of people who do not do [some bad behavior] is from zero to N minus one (where N is all people). Similarly, “unrecognized” greatness implies no one sees it—yet more often, we are looking at situations where a few people recognize an individual’s greatness at least partially, but they are significantly under-appreciated compared to matched peers. However, writing it as such does not make for a compelling essay title, nor does it piss enough people off to provoke attention or thought. More accurately, statements such as “not all people” or “unrecognized greatness” should be rephrased in terms of speculated percentages or proportions. Example: “while many childless Central Floridians under 30 dislike cantaloupe, I think at least 7.5% love cantaloupe but have only tried it in assorted fruit bowls.”

People often encourage us to take personal responsibility for our successes, failures, and circumstances of our lives. Unwittingly, this is better than its polar opposite. Our locus of control truly defines (or results from) how we look at our world. Doing whatever we can to achieve the type, quality, and quantity of success we desire is vital in our pursuit of happiness. Some people have little interest in being recognized for their greatness but just want meaningful personal relationships; they may even be married to people who think their artistic works are of little consequence. Others are desirous of widespread public acclaim and may pursue it at the detriment of other fulfilling paths, with regret or relish. Truly, identifying what is right for us, or what we seek to make become right for us, is of substantial importance. It is even more important than any external markers of greatness, because it justifies our behaviors and beliefs.

Recognition might be icing on the cake, or the cake itself. Desire of recognition is easily derided, but perhaps deserves more respect. “If you really love [some craft], you shouldn’t care about what people think” is a deleterious mantra. Yes, we care about what people think, and we are tired of hearing that it makes us shallow and inferior. The call to action here is to recognize and honor the greatness in both yourself and others, by devoting time and energy to it, and by calling it out in others. At opposite ends of the spectrum, we have the realists who told Elvis Presley he should not quit his day job, and the dreamers who say we should follow our most passionate interests with reckless abandon. In fields where substantial equipment and supplies are required, the path to greatness might entail accumulating funds through unrelated work. Giving up on our dreams is not the answer, nor is pursuing them in a short-sighted manner that leaves us exhausted and destitute.

The best antidote for unrecognized greatness is self-discipline. When you get noticed, there will be a long history of tenacity and perseverance that will basically be ignored. Expect to be told that you “lucked out,” in both getting noticed and being born with a gift. Those who attribute your success to luck will remain in their blissful fairytale world where they struggle without really doing anything. You can try to help them, but you’ll just get laughed at.

In public spaces, many obstacles are not important enough to be removed or addressed at the individual level, because they do not cause enough inconvenience to an individual to compensate for the cost (in time or risk) of removing them. Few motorists would stop to move a fallen branch in the road, because there is not enough incentive to do so; it is far easier and (depending on the speed limit) less risky to simple drive around it. Summing the benefit of such an action among all the people it would benefit usually yields an incentive far higher than the cost; however, since such an incentive cannot be realized on a communistic basis, few people demonstrate such altruism.

Consider the yard sale sign that stays up long after the sale has ended and directs numerous people to a non-existent yard sale. Even though the sign wastes far more time than it would take for the owner to take it down, the owner has very little incentive to remove the sign. In some cases, wasting peoples time is actually incentived—merchants often continue advertising items they do not have, hoping to lure in customers who will reluctantly buy an inferior item at a higher price, rather than leaving empty handed. I can speculate that such deception wastes millions of man hours annually, in Florida alone.

Avoiding punitive action is a common incentive to avoid creating obstacles in public spaces. Littering is something that in theory, a lot more people would be doing if not for fear of heavy fines. Without punitive action and social pressure, littering tends to cause little harm to the litterer, because he or she probably doesn’t live nearby and doesn’t have to worry about picking up the litter, and is also not impacted by the reduced property values and displeasing aesthetic and environmental consequences. Nevertheless, even without fear of punitive action, there are many people who still would not litter, and even with it, many people still litter. Thus, we might not be able to accurately predict how individuals will respond without a wealth of personal information.

The local Aldi grocery store has an effective incentive for customers to put back their shopping carts: getting a shopping cart requires inserting a quarter, which is only removable when the cart is returned to the stall. It is common to see no stray shopping carts in their parking lot, which is ironic, considering that if returning the cart takes 1 minute, that is a pay rate of only $15.00 per hour—certainly a fair percentage of their customers value their time more than that, even on an after-tax basis. Psychological studies make it clear that small incentives that are not even “fair” compensation can result in long-lasting changes to opinions and behaviors. In contrast, generous incentives often result in transitory changes in opinions or behaviors that “snap back” as soon as the incentive is received. Obviously, some customers will not have a quarter available and will end up buying less with only a shopping basket or their bare hands rather than a cart. This may be why the “shopping cart return incentive” (as I call it) is not common (at least in Central Florida). However, such mechanisms can become part of the culture of customers at a store and, counter-intuitively, can result in them becoming more loyal, vocal, and inured. Consider the culture at “warehouse clubs” such as Sam’s Club, BJ’s, and Costco; these stores have literally created barriers to entry—they have made it harder and more costly for customers to begin to shop there than elsewhere, yet this has an effect that reminds me of pair-bonding, possibly due to social and psychological investment.

If we can apply similar models to the general public, we may be able to get more people to move obstacles out of the way and pick up after themselves. Establishing social norms is a good start. You can do this simply by setting a good example when seen by others. The more people that see you, the better, since they might follow suit, particularly if they see such behaviors on a regular basis.

When a friendship or relationship ends, “moving on” is often a difficult and slow process. If there was a large investment of emotion, effort, time, and physical resources, a vacuum is left which must be filled by something, be it solitude, other people, work, or idle sadness. If the relationship was roughly equitable, part or all of the vacuum might be filled by the tasks and responsibilities previously shared with the friend or partner. However, the end of a relationship where you gave far more than you received in return is especially challenging, because now you have so much free time and energy but don’t know what to do with it. It is very easy to succumb to sadness, self-pity, and idleness.

The circumstances under which a friendship end can make it easier or harder to move on. Separation due to drifting interests or a required move may be easier, because the friendship ends on good terms and may even continue through long-distance communication. Far harder are friendships that end with fundamental corruption. Examples of fundamental corruption center around betrayals of trust and expectations, i.e. infidelity, failure to keep secrets, or rampant disparities in value—for example, a friend you volunteer your services to expects to be paid handsomely when you request his or her help. Unfortunately, it is very easy to blame ourselves in such situations; usually, the other person’s true colors were evident but overlooked or ignored by us. I feel it may be a worthwhile recommendation for mindful and conscientious people to actually start blaming others rather than themselves in these cases. Just because someone had no obligation of kindness or fairness to you does not mean they should have a license to shameless pillage your attention, resources, and services.

Likewise, forgiving others may be overrated for mindful and conscientious people. It is not necessarily essential or even conductive to moving on. Consider the friend you have supported and encouraged for years who feels justified in repeatedly berating you (under the guise of “constructive criticism”) and choosing and siding with new friends or acquaintances over you—yet does not notice this is an issue, and declares it is “not [his or her] problem” when confronted. There are a lot of possible ways to move on from such a friendship that have negative consequences for one’s mental health, such as self-loathing, low self-esteem, distrust of others, and a general lack of faith in humanity. However, if we instead categorize the issue as being with the other individual or a class of individuals (i.e. sociopaths or narcissists), we can move on more quickly without challenging fundamental self-beliefs. We can still realize that we are attracted to people with horrible qualities and adjust for it—but with the understanding that the brunt of the faults truly are with our prior friends rather than ourselves. Victim-blaming and guilt by association are barbaric holdovers in a world of progressive social dynamics.

Life is so short; most significant friendships will have existed for at least 1% of your lifespan, which is 9.6 months if you live 80 years. It is difficult to move on after realizing our understanding of someone was fundamentally corrupt, because it has a finality that completely supersedes the temporal nature of the friendship. It is impossible (short of brain damage) to recall a friendship that ended in an act of conniving back-stabbing in the same light you saw it in at the time. Everything turns rancid. Compounding this with the fact that a significant portion of your life was lost is a recipe for suicidal depression. Consider instead that it could have been worse, that you were accomplishing other things during this “lost” time, that the former friend made you feel valued or happy (at times and for a time), or whatever you need to do to cope. Time moves so fast that the hurt may soon subside, although it will not be forgotten until your death (or descent into dementia, possibly).

I believe an essential part of moving on is the complete integration of the belief that the former friend or partner is NOT thinking or caring about you. If you fantasize that the friend is still thinking of you, feels bad about what he/she did, or even carries a piece of you with him/her, you haven’t moved on. Considering that people generally think others give them far more consideration than the harsh reality, it is more likely the other person has moved on far quicker and more easily than you and does not give two shits about you. That you are still reading this essay is evidence of this fact (unless you skimmed or skipped to this paragraph). Trying to force yourself to move on is likely to have maladaptive consequences, however. Recognizing that you care and put more mental energy into the former friendship than your former friend does is a more appropriate first step; it is far superior to believing the former friend is similarly inclined, and with time will allow you to reclaim that energy for your own use. Being that email, Facebook messages, text messages, etc. are readily available, more evidence than ever before is available to indicate your ex-friend does not give two shits about you—if he or she did, you would be receiving an apology text message or at least a simple “hello.”

I am not sure what to do, say, or believe when presented with the idea that other people only care what you can do for them or how you can make them feel. This idea does explain friends who jerk you around and crush your spirit for their personal satisfaction or gain. However, it is often presented with a decidedly “us versus them” feel that implies holders of this belief are different; that they are gifted (or cursed) with the ability to actually care about others, unlike the vast majority. An alternative exists for those who subscribe to subjective reality: for them, the possibility exists that an idea can simultaneously be true AND false. For example, the idea that others only care about what you can give them is true if it helps you be cautiously guarded and avoid being taken advantage of. On the other hand, it is false if it leads you to withdraw from others and be far less happy than you were with your “naïve” beliefs in the goodness of others.

In closing, consider that anyone can be made to do or say betraying things when tortured. If your best friend or closest family member was told he or she would stop being burned with acid or having toenails ripped out if he or she tells the torturer where to find you, you can bet your life the value of your friendship would go to zero. No friendship in life is completely concrete; they are all built on the shifting sands of time, proximity, serendipity, convenience, stimulation, tension, opportunity, and a million other factors. Consider that betrayal might be based not on malice, but a desire to be “right,” to be liked by everyone, to appear completely neutral, etc. But don’t give too much thought to it. Think about yourself and where you are going, and take action based on those thoughts. According to a wannabee author at 2:30 AM, that is the key to moving on.

The following is an exploration of some reasons that come to mind for my growing contempt for the general public, with headings for easy reading. I am sure you will find this far more entertaining than my typical writing.

Siding with the “Winners” (i.e. institutions, corporations)

People love to be on the winning team. Whenever you have a problem with an institution or corporation, you are to blame. For example, if a representative of the New York Times says he or she has canceled your subscription over the phone, yet you continue to receive toilet paper and the accompanying charges, that conversation obviously never took place and you are either lying or insane.

If you were drugged and raped by Bill Cosby, you are obviously just an attention whore.

When it comes to the police, chokeholds are always justified.

If you are terminated or fired from a job, it’s your own damn fault.

Quit whining. Shut up. Fuck you.

Betrayal of Trust for “Your Benefit”

Everyone knows to report to the authorities suicidal or self-injurious behavior disclosed in confidence. However, now this is believed to extend to whatever the hell one feels like. For example, it is completely acceptable to tell a close friend’s secrets to a new friend to help strengthen the new friendship. Triangles of secrecy and islands of ignorance can develop; friends can both know a secret about you and know you must not know they know. When the chain breaks, it’s your fault for being angry—you should be grateful a weight has been non-consensually lifted from your shoulders.

“The Problem Is You,” or, Victim Blaming

Whenever I complain about some injustice, however large or small, if anyone notices, it is to relish in pointing out the common denominator in my experiences. “Hey, did you ever stop to think that maybe you’re the fucking problem in all of these situations? You’re welcome!” People loooooove doing this. Pointing out someone is wrong. It doesn’t get any better than that.

Yet, when you do this to other people, you are just a bitter heckler. They always have a larger number of people on their side.

So, when you have a problem unsubscribing from the New York Times, it is not really a problem with the New York Times. It is a problem with you. You obviously simply don’t know how to unsubscribe from the venerable institution that is the New York Times. Then, later, when you find out a friend is having this problem too, no one cares. It is kind of like the conversation topic that changes before you get to contribute, because everyone else steamrolls you by talking over you, even though you know a lot about the topic and could contribute delightful anecdotes.

Contempt for Photography

As a hobbyist photographer, I occasionally take photos of events (and the people at them) without being paid or expecting anything in return. I often encounter people who are contemptuous of having their picture taken by me, and even threaten me after the fact with physical violence or legal action by Facebook text message. It is curious that Facebook Messenger is the medium of choice for threats. Then, people tell me I don’t know anything about photographers’ rights or copyright law, and cite their years of experience with modeling as evidence that they know the law better than me; principally, that I am not allowed to publish photos of people without their permission. It is extremely annoying that being woefully uninformed is positive correlated with arrogant self-assuredness—model release forms are unnecessary in many non-commercial contexts, and just because some photographers are using them in these contexts is no indication that I must do the same, but just that they are operating out of an abundance of caution beyond what is legally required (i.e. they are getting model release forms for photos taken in a public place and being published in an editorial context).

Leading by Fiat

Leading by fiat is the opposite of leading by example. Unsolicited advice from people who don’t or would not follow the same advice in their lives is one example. Being advised by people who are completely incompetent is particularly vexing. Consider the personal banker who is leasing a car and living with roommates and offers you advice on your spending and investments. Or the alcoholic parent who instructs his children never to be like him. Yet, being told I don’t have a right to speak about topics by people who are even more presumptuous than me makes me particularly contemptuous.

Reveling in Ignorance

“I’ve never heard of that!” is the be-all/end-all of a conversation. If someone has not heard of something, then it is automatically discredited. At the very least, you are ostracized for bringing it up. Stick to the boring, pointless topics people enjoy, such as gossip and sports.

Religious Posturing

Once you have given up calling yourself a Christian for a while, it becomes quite obvious that Jesus Christ would be appalled by the behaviors of the majority of people calling themselves Christians. Such a title is supposed to be a terrible burden of a life of want and sacrifice. Yet you see “Christians” who give none or very little of their time, money, or possessions to the poor. One can easily point out the expensive and grandiose structures created and maintained by many churches (with some exceptions such as Jehovah’s Witnesses). However, I find it far more enticing to discuss political inaction. Consider that Christians are largely supportive or silent regarding the atrocities being committed by the United States military and unconstitutional mercenary forces, such as the “laboratory” that is Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of children that have died as a result of U.S. sanctions and involvement. Instead, some vocal Christians are worried about gay marriage (which is in fact, a superior type of marriage, evidenced by it being exempt from tax disincentives that apply to traditional marriage, such as a decline in SSI income). Meanwhile, marriage is becoming largely irrelevant, with many Christians having “bastard” children or openly “living in sin.” In fact, in 2014, getting married cuts off a lot of opportunities and would be a really bad move for a lot of people.

The culture of evangelical Protestantism or non-denominational Christianity is quite annoying. It is a business with tax-exempt status that knows not to contradict the agenda of the government of the United States for fear of losing that tax-exempt status.

Stop Signs, Left Turns

It is extremely annoying getting to a 4-way stop sign and watching the wheels of a vehicle arriving from another direction to determine that the driver stopped after me, and then having that driver not only fail to yield the right of way, but also beeping his/her horn and obscenely gesturing at me for supposedly cutting him/her off. Then, when another driver puts me or my vehicle in physical danger, I sit there and take it because I don’t want to get ran off the road or shot. Somehow, the obnoxious drivers with their sports cars or oversized pickup trucks know they can walk all over me without fear of retaliatory road rage.

For some reason, special rules apply to people turning left. When no arrow is present, 1-2 cars are permitted to turn left on yellow or red as oncoming traffic stops. Drivers turning left are entitled to not wait through multiple traffic cycles, thus giving them the right of way for several seconds of the oncoming traffic’s green light (longer in Los Angeles). Drivers turning left on a red arrow believe they are actually performing a public service by preventing or reducing blockage of the thru lanes by the next cycle of drivers turning left.

Everyone loves using their left turn signal at an intersection with traffic lights but without left arrows or turn lanes, yielding the right of way to an oncoming driver without a turn signal, and then watching that driver proceed to turn left through intersection. This teaches us a valuable lesson—by leaving one’s turn signal off, you have the right to both go straight or turn left. An oncoming motorist foolish enough to display his or her left turn signal is required to yield to all oncoming motorists turning left without a turn signal.

Frivolous Spending, Entitlement

It’s no secret that the vast majority of Americans are financial morons. What is especially annoying is that so many of them believe they are financially intelligent. “Hey, I have food stamps—I take care of myself! I just can’t afford to give you gas money, but I am financially intelligent because I waited until you dropped me off to tell you that. If you get angry or say anything to my friends, you are really petty. While you were driving, I pointed out illegal maneuvers—which could prevent a ticket later—so in fact, you are in my debt and should be thanking me.”

Seeing people spend, save, or earn money frivolously is not what causes me to feel contempt. I hold them in contempt when they feel entitled to assume a position of superior expertise. You do not have the authority to educate me in finance if you make any of these mistakes:

* Pay usury interest rates.
* Pay 10% to have your coins counted by Coinstar.
* Do not recognize or understand the benefits of credit cards.
* Pay much more to defer payments, i.e. paying Florida property taxes in March when you could save 4% by paying them in November, paying your car insurance monthly when a large discount is available for paying it on a 6-month interval, etc.
* Buy Apple products to be trendy.
* Make dumb purchases of over-priced items for no good reason.
* Do not understand the time-value of money, i.e. passing up opportunities with a high ROI for opportunities with a stupidly low or negative ROI.

One-Sided Relationships

When a “friend” contacts me only when they need something from me, and then becomes incensed when I refuse to help—after a long history of helping said friend with nothing in return, it definitely contributes to my contemptuousness. See, I am well aware that it is wrong to help someone and expect anything in return unless consciously agreed to in advance. Accompanying feelings of resent are also hypocritical, because I agreed to help said person under my own free will. However, I am doubly aware that this cuts both ways—if someone else offers to help me, I don’t owe them a damn thing either (I am not so narcissistic as to claim to hold myself to higher standards than I hold other people). Further, if I refuse to help a friend, it is usually after a long history of being “abused” (which is actually a misnomer since it was under my own free will). Thus, I can legitimize the grandiose feelings of entitlement from the friend who has long benefited from a one-sided relationship (but is suddenly encountering resistance) as the catalyst for my contempt. Attempts at psychological coercion are evidence of these feelings of entitlement.

Thus, the one-sided relationship comes to an end when the loser has had enough. Ironically, the beneficiary typically believes the relationship was balanced or even biased in the former friend’s favor!

Their Word = Shit

Who is a person who does not keep their word? A liar. A cheat. A person without honor. Yet how many people keep their word in American culture? Consider the following scenarios:

* Person on Craigslist says they will show up at 2:00 PM to look at an item.
* Person does not show up.
* You call person at 2:30 PM.
* They say they can’t make it.

* A friend has agreed to go shopping with you.
* The friend cancels due to not feeling well.
* You then see the friend posting photos on Instagram at a nightclub.

* You are honest with a friend and trust that friend to be honest with you.
* The friend does not tell you something really important.
* You find out from someone else or by circumstance.
* The friend has the moral high ground because he/she didn’t tell you out of fear of hurting your feelings or was waiting for the ideal time to tell you.
* The friend delights in telling you he/she was protecting your feelings, hurting you far worse than simple honesty could ever have hurt.

* An acquaintance refuses to return emails, phone calls, or text messages after requesting your assistance, company, or services, thus maintaining plausible deniability regarding receipt of your messages. However, this acquaintance initially sought you out to take photos of her children or some other crap.

* A friend borrows an item from you.
* Friend disappears.

All of these scenarios have one thing in common: dishonor. Yet, if one wishes to have friends, it is very difficult to make friends in contemporary culture without tolerating at least some of these behaviors. Adopting these behaviors myself and expecting them from others is unsatisfying. Why is it that the only thing people respect is force?

“As an American, I have the right to free speech everywhere in America!”

NO, IDIOT. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

For example, an owner of a business generally has the right to kick you out if he/she does not like what you are saying. Similarly, I have the right to kick you out of my house or delete your online comments or messages if I don’t like what you are saying. If you don’t like it, move to a public forum such as a street corner or public park.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.

This semester, having started graduate school in the Applied Learning & Instruction M.A. program at University of Central Florida, an understaffed and somewhat obscure program in the College of Education and Human Performance, I have enjoyed almost universal support and encouragement from family, friends, and acquaintances when education comes up in conversation. However, to say this is a reliable indicator that one has made the best decision, or even a good decision, is dubious at best. While I am happy with the decision to invest $15,000 of my family’s money and perhaps 2500 hours of my time in becoming educated through the structures, procedures, and recommendations made by the instructors of the classes I take in this program, as well as eventually learning how to conduct scientific research, that does not necessarily mean I could not learn the same skills or better skills elsewhere, both at less cost and with more efficiency.

In sum, my undergraduate education in psychology and various elective classes was fully paid for by the state, since it was subsidized by the federal Pell grant program and other tax dollars, the Florida Bright Futures scholarship program, and several other grants and scholarships. Living in Florida, I can never sympathize when people talk about the perils of going into debt to pay for their Bachelors’ degrees, since community colleges and state universities are a viable option and of a lower cost here than in many other states. However, I am receiving no financial aid or scholarships for my graduate classes, and must also pay nearly double the undergraduate tuition per credit hour. Considering graduate school is much more costly and difficult to find grants or scholarships for, it is reasonable to consider graduate school a gambit, meaning “a calculated move” or “something done or said in order to gain an advantage or to produce a desired result.” This implies the quite real probability that the gambit will fail, either subtly or spectacularly.

Typically, people talk about the perils of education in terms of dollars lost—due to the wasted time and money that could have been spent working and advancing one’s career. However, just because you could be working during the time spent on graduate school does not mean such work would be emotionally fulfilling or lead you where you want to go. Particularly with the meta situation of going to college to become an educator, such education has a large extrinsic value, since it is an artificial prerequisite of being an institutionalized educator. This extrinsic value should not be dismissed, because being part of an institution gives one authority, credibility, resources, connections, and higher pay than the majority of self- or independently employed people.

Like a courtship, graduate school should be entered without expectations or attachment to preconceived opinions about what “should” be. It is very different from any other product one would typically purchase. It is also somewhat different from undergraduate education because less hand-holding and incompetence is expected. In many ways, you are expected to be in charge of your education and to exhibit the required attention and self-discipline. Therefore, for fields that do not require special access afforded by a university (i.e. to laboratories, patients, or equipment), such as liberal arts, “soft” sciences, and most computing fields, self-education or education through alternate means can arguably be of equal or greater effectiveness. One could merely read Wikipedia articles (including referenced works) and get as much of an education as graduate school. It is not unthinkable for one to have the rigor and self-discipline to create agendas, assignments, schedules, deadlines, and exams for oneself. One could even solicit subjects and conduct survey research with ease. Unfortunately, even with the rise of free online courses, few people have the willpower to follow through with such plans. Consider that college attendees, with endless sociocultural pressure to persist, drop out in droves—it is not surprising that self-education might be even more difficult. Thus, many students going to graduate school are merely paying for their lack of willpower!

In American culture, being unemployed is unacceptable, but being an unemployed college student garners one instant praise and universal acceptance. While it is easy to fake being a college student, for the honest student who seeks a degree largely for feelings of wisdom, competence, or superiority, social acceptance should be no more than a tangential issue. If you value your individuality, choosing a subject you are interested in is important and should take precedence over what your family or peers encourage you to study. However, developing or losing interest in a field can easily happen after beginning one’s collegiate studies. To say that it is important to figure out what you want to do ahead of time may be a misnomer—knowing you are going down a wrong road often requires traveling part of it. Pursuing any interest is a gambit, but is usually preferable to inaction.

My purpose with this essay is to superficially acknowledge the wide variety of educational options available, and to recognize that graduate school is not necessarily better or worse than other options for the reasons that are commonly parroted. Elevating the importance of introspection and self-inquiry is a marker of narcissism and an easy way to get out of doing real work—graduate school is particularly effective at debunking the value of opinion and educating one to value rigorous and empirical analysis. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of nebulous theories and cults of personality that counteract this phenomenon. Professors command unnatural respect—they are rarely heckled or ridiculed like a cashier at Walmart or McDonald’s, even though they should technically be equivalent to employees (or at least independent contractors) of the students. This is probably because colleges and universities are in the peculiar situation of being paid by you to make sure you learn—which returns to my argument that higher education is a substitute for willpower. The archetypal college-dropout millionaire perennially reminds us that college is for weak, uninspired, boring individuals. The middle road is far less sexy; it is easy to draw inferences from outliers. We cannot say whether successful college dropouts would have succeeded just as much or more had they completed their college educations, though it is fun to bash education.

I will close with the idea that graduate school, like many gambits, is pursued most frequently by individuals who need it least. Many of the people going to graduate school are already relatively educated critical thinkers. They are perfectly capable of contributing to society with their current education and even being financially and emotionally fulfilled, yet compete for slots in graduate programs out of greed and avarice. I will not delude you into believing this greed is for money—it is far more likely for status and prestige. The title of doctor is coveted and bandied about by people who are not medical doctors, despite this being the overwhelming mental association among outsiders or laypersons. Universities are complicit in their greed for state funds, federal funds, and tuition dollars. Like the housing and precious metals markets, higher education is becoming ripe for the slaughter. Although it is obvious that learning can still take place and value reciprocated in such an environment, it is harder to discern when diminishing returns will turn a gambit into a crapshoot.