Trying to Pursued Myself

I wrote this for a Time Base Media assignment, but ultimately never got to use it because of character limits and the inability to read it as it flashed across the screen. And so, I share the text with the world now.

A lot of people are telling me that I should stop comparing myself to other people. They tell me that this is the cause for several moments of self defeat. In all reality, you can't stop being compared to other people even if you yourself don't do this.

When looking for a job, you are going to be in competition with other people who are looking for the same job. As confident as you are that your resume is what they want to see, there is a chance that there is someone out there that is better than you. The employer will no doubt notice this and hire said better person. However, the reverse is also true. You can be the best person that they have in their stack of applications, but they won't hire you. Why? Because you are over qualified for the job.

In this example and in other examples like this, you are still in competition with other people, and you are still being compared to other people. That being said, what are the benefits of not comparing yourself to other people in this society?

One benefit of not comparing yourself to anyone else is that you open yourself up to a realm of purity unhindered by some intangible bar of standards. You can say what you want, do what you want, and act like you want without anyone telling you otherwise. Psychologically, this could lead to a healthier and happier state of mind. In other words, that state of being that has escaped most adults after they start having worries, which is some time in everyone's childhood when something like a deadline is asked from a teacher for a simple piece of homework.

The other benefit to not comparing yourself to anyone is that everything you do is new and exciting, even if someone has done or is doing the exact same thing in one fashion or another. In most projects, be them artistic or even corporate, this causes engagement if not a sense of commitment that is only changed when someone starts thinking about what the other person is doing. With this in mind, comparing your product to the product of your peers will ultimately cause one of two things.

The first of these two is the drive to be better than whom you are comparing yourself to. Being better normally means that you set the bar of standards for everyone else to live by (although not always, as displayed by the example of the overqualified worker). The only down side to this is once you have set that bar for everyone, there will be others that want to pass even that bar. Case and point, the Olympic and World Records of human achievements. Each record is a comparison of people to other people, and each individual record changes whenever someone sees the bar and is driven to go past it. This is the positive benefit to comparing yourself to other people.

The second result of comparing your product to other people is that of inhibiting production. A person will see the bar of expectation and may get discouraged, if not angry and frustrated, by the fact that there is a better product out there. Inventors have to deal with this very often, as someone some where has already invented and beaten the others to the punch with the same idea. Because of this, those that believe originality and innovation is the key to setting the standards often give up, as the novelty of the product has already been introduced into the marketplace. This negative result can only be canceled out by the first result, in which comparing yourself to other results in a drive to become better even if the idea or product is unoriginal, thereby creating what is known as "the new spin."

The key factor in deciding which of these two paths happen depends on the person. In both cases, those that don't compare themselves to anyone are able to work and produce uninhibited by originality or standards. The only definite time for comparison comes when that product is finished. If said person wishes for that product to be on public display, then a path must be picked as to the fate of the product itself and, in turn, the person. From there, the determining factor as to which of the two paths a person picks is strictly psychological. If the product was not meant for the public, then everything I have said and will say about comparison is considered null and void.

It's rather difficult to escape public exposure, as even the most private of things often end up finding their way into the public arena. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the product that everyone produces is automatically going to be displayed in public. Once in the eyes of the public, is it then just as difficult to avoid being compared to everyone else.

The public has a tendency to compare everything to everything else in the realm of general knowledge. Television is a good example of this, as individual program ratings will determine which of the many crime scene investigation shows gets another season and which ones gets cancelled. The public also determines which books sell, which movies get a sequel, and even what brand of toilet paper the local drug store should sell. And they all decide this by comparing everything to everything else. The system of comparison varies from group to group, but the overall idea is this: If it is better and/or cheaper than what is out there now, then that's the one to go with.

This style of comparison may seen as exclusive to the commercial or entertainment markets, but it applies to everything else as well. Someone always is comparing something to something else. The employer is comparing applications for a position he or she needs filled to see who is the more qualified; art buyers are comparing this work to that work to determine which is more engaging to the viewer if not to see if it falls into their personal taste; sport teams and individual athletes review recorded plays of their competition to better prepare themselves in an effort to come out on top; politicians are compared to the ones that came before them or are working along side with them, which ends up determining their public appeal and approval as far as what their actions' effect on the public. We, as the public, even compare culture and religion to each other, mostly to single out the differences between what it is that makes us individuals. But is doing so a bad thing?

Comparing one thing to another is a bad thing depending on what is being compared and why. For example, a criminal is labeled as the worst person since the last criminal with the same title. Barring if said criminal gets the death sentence or not, this comparison is detrimental to the indiviual's overall reputation. He is the meanest of the mean until someone comes along that is meaner than him. This means that there is someone out there that could be worse than the worst person you can think of right now. In this case, one has to hope that nobody wants the title of "Worst Criminal in the World" and is inhibited by that intangible bar.

However, being told that you are the worst at something can cause the positive result to come out. Being told that you are the worst student in the class could cause one to strive to be better and actually meet the standards expected from the class. In this sense, comparing yourself to others is a good thing, as it helps you figure out where you stand in the invisible ranking system of the world. In other words, it isn't so much your fault as it is the fault of the ranking system to determine who is better than you and who you are better than. This is the problem with comparing yourself with other people.

The problem with comparing yourself with others isn't if it is good or bad. It should be obvious that the idea of the action being good or bad is contextual. The problem is with who sets the bar. With national records and Olympic records, the people that set the bar are the ones that have achieved it and have documented proof of such achievement. In matters of public opinion such as which television show is better, the bar is set by the majority. That bar is always in flux. One month reality shows are the big ratings winner, and then the next month the winner are the crime shows. When comparing yourself to others, you set the bar.

So, now that we have figure out who sets the bar of standards, another question comes out: how high do you set that bar for yourself? Again, this is contextual based on the individual. An athlete may have a rival whom he or she wishes to beat out in one fashion or another. Normally, this rival is better than said athlete and continues to get better until the athlete beats the rival, during which the roles are reversed. So what happens to the rival? Well, let's pretend that this rival knows that there is someone better now out there, but is unable to pass the newly set bar. He or she does have the drive to attempt to beat out their new rival and quits, seeing as the goal as an impossibility. The athlete's bar set by themselves is to be better than the rest, but the rival knows that no amount of training can get him past the new standard and expectation. Two individuals in the same field with different personalities entirely.

In retrospect, this entire time I've been comparing the good and the bad of comparing one's self to another. And in a strange twist of irony, I have yet to figure out if even comparing those two together is a good or bad thing in itself. After all, the only way to determine what is good and what is bad is either by public or personal opinion. The majority or the individual has the choice of saying what is good and what is bad through nothing but pure comparison.

That being said, the only way I can determine if comparing myself to other people is a good thing or a bad thing is to know where my own personal bar of standards is set for what it is that I want to do. However, before that, I must determine if I even care about what the other person is doing in the same field of interest. If I do care, I have to set a bar. If I don't care, I can choose to set a bar or not depending on my own individual idiosyncrasies. After figuring out if there is even a bar set, I have to ask myself several questions. Chef among the questions is this: do I personally think I can reach if not pass the bar that I set for myself? If not, do I lower the bar? Would lowering the bar be a bad thing in itself when compared to keeping it where I set it in the first place?

The last question is where the self-defeating nature comes in when you compare yourself to others. And again, another comparison comes into play as to if it is a good thing or a bad thing to lower your bar of standards for yourself. At best, this is determined by what other people think of you as a person. For someone seen by other people as not worth their weight in salt, lowering your expectations as to what you are able to do may be seen as being realistic. For someone seen by others as a great person with equally great potential, lowering the bar is a bad thing, as essentially you are denying what people think so highly of you as a person.

But what happens if you don't care about what people think? You ultimately don't have anyone telling you what is good and what is bad for you. Without even that basic comparison, you end up not having to compare anything to anything else. If nobody else's opinion matters, then the only logical choice as to whose opinion does matter falls on yourself. Ultimately, this means that you get to choose what is good and what is bad, not for the world, but for yourself.

So for me, do I consider comparing myself to other people a good or bad thing? Given everything I've said without going into my own personal idiosyncrasies, I've come to this conclusion. The people that have been telling me this for years are right. I really should stop comparing myself to other people.

Unfortunately for me, old habits die harder than new ones. That being said, the first thing I did while viewing my peers work for the class was compare mine to theirs.

Yeah, I know. I should practice what I preach.