"Life doesn't go from A to B -- it's messy," says sailing legend Tracy Edwards. In this inspiring talk, she tells how she went from teenage misfit to skipper of the first all-female crew in the toughest race on the seas -- and how she now helps young people around the world achieve their dreams, too.
This talk was presented at an official TED conference, and was featured by our editors on the home page.
About the speaker
Tracy Edwards · Trailblazer
Tracy Edwards MBE battled against the odds (and the sea) to become the first woman to win the Yachtsman of the Year Trophy.
The nature of life is one of the most fascinating but challenging issues
in science. In fact, it’s been that way since the start of recorded
human history, before we even thought of ‘science’ as a distinct pursuit
among human intellectual pursuits. (Which it arguably isn’t or
shouldn’t be. Except that our past four centuries having been dominated
by a specific dissociation
of science from natural philosophy, boxing it into the enterprises of
nation-states and industrialization. Phew, there, I said it.)
Today we still don’t have a complete, agreed upon, picture of how life is initiated; how living systems might originate in
an environment. Nor do we have a complete picture of how life and a
planetary environment become as intimately entwined as they are on the
Earth. Perhaps the most honest - and hugely unsatisfying - answer to
both puzzles at the moment is that these things clearly do happen, and
must happen for Earth to be the way it is.
Nonetheless, we can say with some certainty that
life is when a system successfully propagates versions of itself into
the future, by whatever means work in the face of a complex and variable
environment (that itself might include other living systems). And when
we say ‘work’ we mean ‘work well enough’. There is a bit of a
misconception that can infect our thinking, one that says that organisms
can be ‘perfect’ in the sense of adaptation to their environments.
You’ll have heard phrases like this in breathless nature documentaries
or rushed science reporting – where it is hinted that a species is a
miraculous piece of finely-tuned engineering or intuitive genius.
Such-and-such a characteristic is perfectly tuned or balanced, or the
animal knows when and where to do something because this will ensure the
survival of its species.
No, not really. Behind the curtains of Darwinian
selection is the simple fact that what we see of organisms merely
reflects properties that combine to enable those organisms to propagate
themselves (meaning their genetic material) into the future with a
finite probability. If these properties were not the way they are the
propagation might or might not fail. There can be, and often is,
enormous attrition within generations or across generations. This is,
literally, a numbers game.
Which brings us to what I think are some of the most
critical unanswered questions in our efforts to characterize places in
the cosmos where life might be.
While we often talk about the ‘habitability’ of
environments, like rocky exoplanets, that term is woefully inadequate.
It is a crude conflation of ideas, that while convenient in a very broad
way, may be hindering our ability to really tackle the more fundamental questions.
For instance, when we evaluate whether a particular
world might harbor life we should really be looking at a layering of
probabilistic phenomena. First might be the root frequency (the rate) at
which ‘origin events’ (abiogenesis) would be expected
on a planet as a function of time. Second might be the frequency, or
probability with which a given origin event continues into the future –
again as a function of time or planetary age. In other words, the
capacity of a planet to sustain life is potentially a very different
issue to that of the capacity to initiate life.
It’s very hard to know whether these two phenomena
are going to be correlated. Maybe some places are great at constantly
triggering origin events but lousy at maintaining them for eons, or vice
versa. These two probabilities could be wildly different.
The circumstances of the Earth tend to bias us to
what could be an extreme viewpoint. Life on this planet appears to have
an unbroken lineage going back at least 3.5 billion years. It’s tempting
to see this as a yardstick for what a habitable planet ‘should do’. But
maybe it isn’t. Maybe a good run for life on an average planet is only a
few million years, or even less. We simply don’t know.
I’m not sure there’s a reason to imagine that the
history of life plays out in any very consistent way across the cosmos.
Even if the underlying molecular mechanisms are indeed universal and the
energetic requirements from a planet (geochemical and climatological)
are what we suspect. Evolution does not care.
If something works well enough, it will be there in the future. If
something doesn’t work well enough it will be filtered out. Life is not
engaged in a ‘struggle’. That’s a convenient and misleading
anthropomorphism. If things don’t work well enough life simply goes
away.
What does this mean for our efforts to find other
biologically active planets in the universe? In some ways it doesn’t
impact those searches, or indeed the ways in which we attempt to gauge
the suitability of other worlds for harboring life. We are stuck using
our template of the Earth and what we think happens to planetary
conditions in varying circumstances – based on very limited data from
our history and from the solar system. Until we get much more detailed
information about rocky exoplanets most bets are off, and we need these crude templates to make tough choices about which worlds to study.
But our ignorance about the nature of life is going
to become a critical issue when we do eventually learn more about these
other worlds. We may not know their ages well (stellar and system ages
can be horribly poorly constrained), and we will still not know what the
root probabilities are for life’s origins and life’s persistence. Nor
will we know how many worlds have had or will have life sprawling across
them – if we’re lucky we will simply see the worlds that are at present
‘good enough’.
Caleb
A. Scharf
is director of astrobiology at Columbia University. He is author and
co-author of more than 100 scientific research articles in astronomy and
astrophysics. His work has been featured in publications such as New
Scientist, Scientific American, Science News, Cosmos Magazine, Physics
Today and National Geographic.
You
keep working and working — slogging through the doldrums of day-to-day
life, repressing your desires for pleasure — looking forward to the day
when it all pays off. The moment when you achieve that elusive state of
happiness.
…Or
maybe it doesn’t pay off. Maybe the expectations you’ve set — the
(arbitrary) milestone you’ve defined as success — will never be reached.
Or
maybe when you do reach your goal, that dopamine hit of success is only
short-lived. After a few days — or weeks or months — you find yourself
desperately seeking that next hit.
Hedonic adaptation is
the tendency for humans to quickly adapt to major positive or negative
life events or changes and return to their base level of happiness.
As
a person achieves more success, expectations and desires rise in
tandem. The result is never feeling satisfied — achieving no permanent
gain in happiness.
“The joys of loves and triumphs and the sorrows of losses and humiliations fade with time.” — Sonja Lyubomirsky
After
a significant life event, hedonic adaption occurs as a result of
cognitive changes. These changes can include a change in values, goals,
attention or interpretation of a situation.
For
example, after making your first million dollars, a number you had
previously thought was significant, you might start thinking one million
dollars is really not all that much in the grand scheme of things.
The outcome is that no matter how pleasurable — or how disappointing — a situation is, we return to a happiness “set point.”
A happiness set point
is where humans generally maintain a constant level of happiness
throughout their lives, despite events that occur in their environment.
According to Alex Lickerman M.D.,
“[One’s
happiness set point] is determined primarily by heredity and by
personality traits ingrained in us early in life and as a result remains
relatively constant throughout our lives. Our level of happiness may
change transiently in response to life events, but then almost always
returns to its baseline level as we habituate to those events and their
consequences over time.”
The
troubling conclusion that presents itself as a result of understanding
hedonic adaption, is that there may be a formidable barrier to raising
happiness over the long-term.
Hedonic
adaption theory shows that positive and negative events do have an
impact on how we feel for short periods of time, but not over the
long-term.
It
helps explain why earning a $75k annual salary is pretty great compared
to earning minimum wage, but compared to your friend earning $250k, is
not so satisfying.
It
helps explain why when people are unable to eat at five-star
restaurants, they get used to cooking at home, and actually seem to be
just as happy as the people eating at the five-star restaurants.
It
helps explain why when you quit your job to work on a startup, it feels
amazing at first, until you’re overcome the stress of needing to make
ends meet. And then when you’re forced to take a job again after your
startup doesn’t work out, you’re not overcome with crippling depression.
At first, compared to your life of freedom and unlimited potential,
employment seems dull and defeating. But in time, you get used to it.
Give Up?
“Very
frequently we hear of great sages discussing the pursuit of happiness
as futile and nonsensical, putting happiness in line with all other
worldly pursuits; temporary in nature and therefore impermanent and
unnecessary, unable to add to our true, authentic happiness.” — Kulraj
If
accomplishments and successes — money, fame, love — won’t make you
happier over the long-term, does that mean there’s no sense working
towards them?
Should we just set low expectations for ourselves? Diminish all hope? Squash our own dreams and desires? Let ourselves fail?
By
setting realistic expectations, and gaining a true perception of your
realities, hedonic adaption can actually be an empowering reminder.
The Comparison Fallacy
Given
that ever-increasing expectations leads to perpetual dissatisfaction,
decreasing expectations seems like a logical strategy. However, if you
simply decrease your expectations without living up to your standards,
you’re in a subtle state of underachievement.
The
2016 Presidential Election — an omnipresent thought across of the minds
of Americans right now—provides a great illustration of how making
comparisons rather than objective evaluations can lead us astray.
The eve of the election makes us think not only about who the best candidate is, but about “the system” as a whole.
The
“hedonically-adapated” person — with high expectations — is unhappy
with both candidates. Furthermore, he thinks we shouldn’t have political
rulers at all. “Democracy is just the majority rule.” In comparison to
freedom, democracy sounds inhumane. He’s not satisfied, even though he
has it better than people in many other parts of the world and
throughout history.
Meanwhile,
the person with lower — perhaps more reasonable (at least at first
consideration)— expectations is happy to be able to vote on who rules
them. “I know the system is terrible, but at least we’re able to vote.”
In comparison to dictatorship, democracy sounds great.
Arguments can be made for both cases. It simply depends on your base state.
Democracy may seem great compared to dictatorship — and Hillary may seem great compared
to Trump. Just like how the $20 insurance plan may seem like a drop in
the bucket when you’re already spending $300 on a pair of headphones,
while $20 for a lunch that you usually only spend $10 on, will seem like
a huge rip off. Or how making $75k seems great compared to making
minimum wage, but not to making $250k.
Because something is comparably worse doesn’t mean that it is unacceptable. Similarly, because something is comparably better does not necessarily mean that it is right.
Just
like expecting less and actually feeling fulfilled (for once) is not
always a poor strategy, the desire for more is not always hedonistic.
Sometimes dissatisfaction is valid.
The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations
Solely
decreasing your expectations ensures that you will never reach your
full potential. The key is not simply adapting to arbitrary outcomes,
but adapting to truth. The truth about your personal preferences,
values, goals and abilities.
When
you expect less from those around you, you are subtly holding them in
contempt. It may be packaged as an act of compassion — however you are
actually treating them as less than they are. You strip them of the
ability to live to their full potential.
Similarly,
when you don’t expect yourself to live to your potential, you ensure
that you won’t. However it’s defining your potential where things get
interesting.
How to Increase Your Happiness “Set Point”
If
happiness is the difference between expectations and reality, you are
faced with two options: lower your expectations or increase your
reality.
As
I’ve made the case for above, lowering your expectations and improving
your reality are not end all solutions. Lowering expectations is
demoralizing while continually chasing outcomes fails to provide
fulfillment over the long-term.
However, not all hope is lost. I propose two strategies (and six ways to implement them)…
Set realistic expectations based on your real abilities.
Increase your perception of reality by combatting irrational thinking.
Setting Realistic Expectations Through Self-Awareness
1. Gain self-awareness.
Many millennials have been coddled into thinking they’re god’s gift to earth. We’ve read self-help books
that lend us to believe we can do anything we set out mind to. And we
haven’t been exposed to the realities of our genetic abilities.
I’m guilty of it too. I’ve taken on overly ambitious projects that I was not capable of executing on and failed miserably.
We
still don’t have an effective way to measure one’s abilities. High
school diplomas and college degrees have proven insufficient indicators
of future success or happiness. IQ, while not perfect, has shown to be
correlated with career success. However it’s actually illegal to test
for in a job interview. It’s very taboo to talk about genetic abilities
because we don’t want to hurt feelings.
By gaining self-awareness, and matching your expectations to be in line those realities, you‘re adapting to the right set point.
This
might entail decreasing one’s expectations and desires. Decreasing
expectations is hard to grapple with. It’s not something anyone has ever
been willing to tell us we need to do.
Only after having realistic expectations is it worth working on improving outcomes. By increasing your reality, to realistic expectations, you reach your potential.
Instead
of desperately seeking realities that aren’t achievable, or that once
achieved are only short lived dopamine hits, you are at equilibrium.
2. Accept reality.
You
don’t need to have opinions about everything — particularly if they’re
negative. What matters most is not your opinion. What matters most is
reality.
Our
government is a Republic. You need to make money to survive and live
comfortably. You may have weaknesses in necessary skillets. The list
goes on.
Trying
to deny reality is futile. Many things are outside of your control.
Wishing and hoping things were different only leads to anxiety.
3. Pursue ends goals.
Means
goals are the tangible outcomes we want to achieve — such as $x million
or a given job title. Means goals are often only a means to a larger,
more fulfilling end goal.
Ends goals are our ultimate destinations. Ends goals reflect one’s personal values and are often feelings.
My
ends goals are to be happy, healthy, and helpful. Until means goal are
achieved, you’re in a constant state of underachievement. However I can
achieve my ends goals regardless of tangible outcomes or any other
factors outside of my control. But they do require ongoing execution.
If
you think you’re in danger, you will feel great anxiety, even if you
are actually safe. If you achieve “success” — however that my be defined
for you — but you don’t realize you have, or you hedonically adapt to
it quickly, you will still feel unfulfilled.
One
key adaptation thwarting element is attention. Once we stop paying
attention to an event — appreciating a positive event or ruminating on a
negative event — we have adapted.
Here are two ways to increase your perception of reality:
1. Celebrate wins — even small wins.
Celebrating wins reinforces your attention on the positive.
For something big, like gaining a new client or a new job — treat yourself to a steak dinner.
For something small, like a client giving positive feedback — grab some dessert.
2. Express gratitude.
Expressing gratitude means appreciating what you already have.
I express gratitude every morning. It can be for something small, like my coffee, or something large, like my family.
3. Affirm confidence.
One of my favorite phrases is “I’ll figure it out.”
I repeat to myself to remind me that no matter what comes my way, I
have the ability to deal with it, and that in the end, I’ll be fine.
Knowing that I’ll adapt empowers me to take action without fear and
increases my base state of confidence.
With the six practices above:
I know what I can realistically achieve.
I’m unafraid of negative outcomes and empowered to take action.
The bar is not set too high so that I will never be happy.
The bar is not set too low so that I do not feel fulfilled.
I make better and more practical decisions.
I’m happy and fulfilled — My base state happiness and self-esteem is high.
Matching Your Expectations to Reality.
Even
if you’ve spent your whole life pursuing something, once you get it,
you adapt to the new reality. It becomes the new base state. Once it’s
the base state, we’re susceptible to the same feelings of inadequacy or
underachievement that we had before. It doesn’t matter that we worked
for decades to get there —once we’ve got it, it’s not exciting anymore.
It
may make achievement seeking seem inconsequential. If you challenge
yourself significantly, and bank your happiness on achieving a given
outcome, you’re in a state of failure until you achieve it. And then
when you finally do achieve it, the feeling of happiness is only
short-lived, as you quickly move on to striving for the next milestone.
However,
if you don’t challenge yourself enough, you’ll inevitably feel
unfulfilled. When you hold low expectations for yourself, you are
thinking less of yourself and selling yourself short.
My approach has been to gain self-awareness, maximize my perception of reality, and then take action without desperately seeking validation that will only be short-lived, or having my happiness dependent on outcomes.
Don’t live by comparisons. Live by what’s true. Let knowing that you’ll adapt be empowering.
Self-improvement and learning for life can be a lot of fun!
Working hard but not improving? You're not alone. Eduardo Briceño reveals a simple way to think about getting better at the things you do, whether that's work, parenting or creative hobbies. And he shares some useful techniques so you can keep learning and always feel like you're moving forward.
This talk was presented to a local audience at TEDxManhattanBeach, an independent event. TED's editors chose to feature it for you.
About the speaker
Eduardo Briceño · Learning expert
Eduardo Briceño is a learner, leader, speaker and writer devoted to enabling a more learning-oriented world.
