i was taking an online quasi-serious quiz at https://www.politicalcompass.org/, a test which, in its own words... (well, that sucks, there’s no description of itself. tsk, just click on it and you’ll get the whole point.)
as i went along, taking sometimes up to three minutes answering particular questions as my mind delves into time and space into the possible repercussions of how my mere opinions could play out and affect people, in the different societies that i kinda know about, such as Singapore, New York, Tokyo, Moscow, Melbourne, HCMC, KL, Jakarta... (also Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, as much as i deign to think i know, and even feudalist or monarchies of old, including fantasy-based Mordor and Minas Tirith...), i came across this peculiar question which kinda touched a nerve:
“When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. (Strongly) Agree or (Strongly) Disagree?”
basically, i went “what the hell? i’m trying to figure out if im a capitalist or socialist or whatever here, and if i’m subconsciously supportive of something else rather than the other” as i grappled with why the quiz was asking such a question.
did one of the legendary economists make this a poignant-enough point along the lines that "people may think that they know what they want right now, but that want will change sooner rather than later, according to the times and circumstances, which are ever changing"? or did such an economist go full Darwinist and was adamant that perhaps troubles will always come, there will never be an end to troubles, but what is most important is not in solving them, but to outgrow those problems by adopting a different perspective altogether, whether psychologically, or even physically.
“When you complain, you make yourself a victim. Leave the situation, change the situation, or accept it. All else is madness.” - Eckhart Tolle.
i am a problem solver, and not only do i pride myself in solving problems well, it seems to me that i sometimes enjoy looking for problems. one too many times, perhaps.
so this seemingly harmless, out-of-place, quiz question triggered me. “When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. (Strongly) Agree or (Strongly) Disagree?” indeed, mr quiz man sir.
i got disgusted that such a question even exists! “What the hell do you mean, you punk ass coward? If you see a problem, you f-cking solve it!! Don’t run or hide away from it!! Jesus, that’s exactly why the whole f-cking world is so f-cked up!”
15 seconds after psychically raging the above disgust from my head, i decided to maybe give that quiz question the benefit of the doubt, if it were actually meant to be of a deeper substance.
i thought, hmm, if i attempted to solve the problem, that would take time, effort, resources, and a lot of wasted psychological well-being and energy.. and there is zero guarantee that one could solve it, or at least even temporarily.
would the solution be able to fit anyone else, or everytime it pops up again? does it end the problem, or is it a temporary remedy? and as mentioned, can i even actually solve the problem, or at least in time?
or maybe its just better to not have such a problem in the first place, right?
the most relatable example would be this; one gets married. (simmer down, married men in the audience, calm your tits..) does one endeavour to fix the friction between the two lovebirds, or should they just divorce and go do something else, and perhaps be much happier and more productive?
or, someone decides to work harder and thus experiences more harmful stress. the hard work isn’t the problem; the stress is, isn’t it?
or maybe you’re really bad at cooking, and you’re very unhappy with the quality of the food you make, and decided to add more problems to your plate by attempting to learn how to cook.
sorry, those were not illustrating my point well enough. here’s a slightly better one. you’re not waltzing around with a Prada handbag, you’re bad at gossip, you don’t drive a BMW, you don’t wear Patek Phillipe watches, and these can all be “serious” problems if you’re hanging out with the Joneses.
(and believe me, i tried to incorporate examples which involved survival money, and none of them turns out well, lol. in fact, here’s something even worse than money-related issues; placing one’s self into philosophy dialectics. seriously. don’t ever fall into this trap and waste your time.)
- the married person could just choose to leave the marriage and no longer have that particular problem.
- the labourer could choose to find a different job.
- the tv-dinner guy, could just instead learn to not care how awful his food is, or do chinese take-away. or thai. thai food is just bloody incredible.
- the Smiths could just go find a different bunch of friends rather than hang out with the Joneses. and slowly, but surely, priorities will change and shift, and you will find yourself rid of the old “problems”.
there are choices to be made when faced with problems. problems will always exist. when problems are unavoidable, one should probably try their best to fix it. but many times, we forget to ask first, “is this problem actually avoidable in the first place?”, or if one is already ankle-deep in shit, “can i solve this problem effectively, or can i change certain aspects of my life to no longer experience this as a problem?”
i hope these problematic questions that i just posed, finds value for you in your daily struggles at work, at home and in times of trouble, and even in times of leisure too!
may peace be upon us all.
i should probably go and finish that quiz now.
(this message has been brought to you by humanism. go Humanist, because you deserve a better day!)