I remember, years ago, taking a walk after one of my many career failures and feeling quite sorry for myself. Suddenly it occurred to me that whether I had succeeded or failed was not very important. Either way, the sky would be just as blue, the sun just as warm, the leaves just as green. This was my first inkling that failure is not the life-and-death issue it's made out to be.
We are taught almost from birth that we have to win, win, win. But the truth is, most of us don't win. We lose. For the most part, our lives consist of going from one failure to another, with only the most ephemeral and insignificant victories.
Society tacitly regards us "losers" as useless and worthless. Only "life's winners" are celebrated -- the few who've grabbed the brass ring.
Yet even the rare person who does succeed in one area of life will often fail spectacularly in other areas. I've read three biographies of Walt Disney, a man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to become one of the most successful movie producers in the world. Despite his enormous success in business, Disney clearly failed as a father, husband, and employer. He was reportedly a vicious anti-Semite, and he held grudges for years against anyone who crossed him. He was widely despised as a nasty, coldhearted human being. Was he essentially a success or essentially a failure? I would say his failures greatly outweighed his success -- but I'm not blaming Uncle Walt for this, because the same is true of nearly all of us.
Take me, for instance. I've spent more than 20 years trying to become a successful fiction writer, without ever achieving consistent sales figures. I never attained my goals, and I doubt I ever will. With my poor track record, it's quite possible I'll never publish another book. I'm a failure. The only difference between me and most other failures is that I'm willing to make a frank acknowledgment of this fact.
Rather than face up to the reality of their own failure, most people rationalize. They deny. They make excuses. And they "keep plugging away" in the forlorn hope that somehow they can turn it around and become "winners" after all. The last-minute reprieve, the sudden transmutation of defeat into victory, is a big part of the American mythos. So we drive ourselves crazy in pursuit of "success" and beat ourselves up when we fail. We chase our own tails, going slowly insane, rather than simply giving up the chase and learning to be satisfied with who we are.
I think rather than fighting failure, we need to accept it - even embrace it. No more evasions. No more tall tales about how things will be different tomorrow, next week, or next year.
What does it mean to embrace failure? It means recognizing the truth of the situation. It means saying to yourself in no uncertain terms, without shame or guilt, "I am a failure." Own it. Live it. Until you do this, you're still in denial.
This may seem unduly pessimistic or cruel, but hear me out. I'm not talking about self-flagellation. Quite the opposite. When you fully accept yourself as a failure, it means two things -- you accept failure, and you accept yourself.
Most of us have learned the bad lesson that we should value ourselves only to the extent that we are successful. This sets us up for constant self-criticism and disappointment. It's far better to fully accept yourself while accepting your own failure. There is no contradiction in saying, "I'm a failure, and I'm okay." The "failure" part relates to some external goal or process, while the "okay" part relates to who you are as a person.
Maybe there ought to be a support group for failures -- Failures Anonymous. Except we shouldn't be anonymous. There's no shame in failure. We've allowed ourselves to be shamed and guilt-tripped for too long by the smug "winners" (like Uncle Walt?) who think they have a right to set the rules.
Failure, when acknowledged, can be enormously liberating. The pursuit of "success" is enervating, life-sapping. Paradoxically, the embrace of failure is uplifting, ennobling, because it allows for detachment. We are no longer in competition with our fellow humans. We can stop playing the game and enjoy the simple experience of being alive. Instead of snatching at the brass ring, we can get off the carousel and walk away. Let the carousel keep spinning without us. We're free.
The downside of failure is only the stigma attached to it in our acquisitive, materialistic, competitive society. Remove the stigma, and failure is no big deal. We all fail at almost everything. So what? A case can be made that failure -- not success -- is what life is really all about. Certainly it's what most of life consists of, for most people, most of the time.
Wouldn't it be a healthier message if society said that losing is part of life, that failure is far more common than success, and that your self-worth is not dependent on external achievements? Wouldn't we all be better off if we didn't insist on keeping score, tallying up our points, and forever falling short of an imaginary perfection?
Our widespread fear and denial of failure imposes enormous costs. Not wanting to admit our own self-contempt, we project it onto others. "I may not have accomplished everything I'd like, but at least I'm better than ____." Fill in the blank with the scapegoat of your choice. Racism, sexism, and all other forms of bigotry proceed from this starting point. So do most of the personal conflicts that turn neighbor against neighbor.
Suppose we practice a different approach. "I'm a failure, just like ____. The two of us have a lot in common. I feel closer to ____ when I think of things that way." It's hard to hate others if you see them as being no different from yourself.
There is much talk about learning from our failures. This can be good or bad. It's good if what we learn is how inconsequential failure is, and how little it affects who we are. It's bad if we believe we are learning what we need to know in order to avoid future failures. This is futile and misguided, and it keeps us on the carousel. "I'll never make that mistake again," we say, just before making that mistake again. "Next time I'll know more, do better, and succeed," we say, right before we fail.
So dismount that carousel horse, give up on the brass ring, and poke a thumb in the eye of any know-it-all who tells you that "success" is what life is all about. Say it and mean it: I'm a failure, and I'm okay.
I had a remarkable exchange of e-mail with James Randi regarding cold fusion. In the end, he made two assertions:
1. He himself is not qualified to judge whether a cold fusion device is working or not.
2. He does not believe in scientific method, and he does not trust the authority of mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, or the technical judgment of people such a the top researchers at Amoco and the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Government of India.
Below are extracts from the last message I sent him, plus his response.
Regarding the assertions made here, I know little about ESP research, and I cannot judge whether ESP exists or not, but I do not think it resembles cold fusion. Cold fusion is a relatively simple physics experiment that uses mainly 19th century techniques, and compared to ESP it is more reproducible, and the signal to noise ratio is higher.
Regarding the research at the U.S. Navy, see:
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm
Documents from the Indian AEC are here:
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/BARC.htm
- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: APS versus JJAP
You wrote:
>I neither said nor implied -- not "suggested" -- cheating, even in the SRI
>Geller "tests." You are adopting a sophomoric tactic here.
Well, why else would you require "supervision"? At a National Laboratory, scientists are never "supervised" by outside observers. I cannot imagine they would allow anything like that at the [Japanese National] Synchrotron Lab. Of course they would welcome visitors from the APS [American Physical Society].
>When you select your preferred authority, you are effectively selecting
>data.
I select relevant authorities. I select the people who have performed and published peer-reviewed cold fusion experiments. Who else?!? If you can suggest an APS member who has published a peer-reviewed critique, that would be fine, but I do not think there are any. We need to confine the discussion to legitimate scientists who have done peer-reviewed work.
>And, when it's my million dollars at stake, I insist on independent
>supervision.
In point of fact, these experiments cost $10 to $20 million or more, plus it helps to have a multi-billion dollar synchrotron beam. The Japanese National Labs and universities where this work is performed are not allowed to accept money from private individuals or foundations. So this is a moot point. (On the other hand, U.S. universities can accept grants.) However, if you would like to arrange for a serious scientific confirmation of cold fusion with people from the APS -- or any legit scientific institution -- I can assist.
>I suppose you would not?
I trust the peer-review system, and I have spent many hundreds of thousands on cold fusion research (financing experiments mainly in U.S. universities).
>I am NOT an academic, I am not bound by academic niceties . . .
They are, however. And also they are bound by strict rules about access to the Synchrotron Lab and places like that. Tourists, unqualified people and casual visitors are not allowed in.
>Please, do not assign characteristics, opinions, or statements, to me.
What am I to make of your assertion that hundreds of professional scientists require "supervision" before you will believe them? This is an extraordinary thing to say. Would you also supervise surgeons and airplane pilots?
>Let's leave it here: the million-dollar prize of the James Randi
Educational Foundation is available for
>the operation of a practical working version of the "cold fusion" claim.
A practical working version is an entirely different matter! This will take billions of dollars to develop. . . .
If you seriously want proof that cold fusion is real, I can arrange for that. No one, anywhere on earth, is now in a position to demonstrate a practical device. Given the known difficulties, the idea is utterly absurd.
>Apply.
I do not represent a Japanese National Lab or Stanford University (which is looking for cold fusion funding). I doubt they will apply for anything from your foundation. They are working with the U.S. Navy, the Italian National Nuclear Laboratories and the French AEC, not with private individuals. If you wish to arrange expert visits and evaluations, that is possible.
Let me suggest that if you are not seriously interested in evaluating cold fusion (or having one of your experts do it) you should refrain from making statements about it, or declaring that it does not exist. (For that matter, you should not declare that it does exist.) I think you are not in a position to judge these matters. Your previous statements were not in evidence. You asserted that cold fusion does not "work" and there have been no "eureka" moments. Professional scientists are a reserved and careful bunch, and their papers are difficult to understand, but I am sure you can
see that the sample text from Amoco was a definite, full-on shout of "EUREKA!" (by modern academic standards). [See http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf] There are hundreds more like that. These people have no doubt whatever that cold fusion is real, and I assure you, they have spent years and years checking their results. Naturally, you cannot accept their judgment simply because they are 70-year-old distinguished professors and Fellows of the U.S. Navy and the like, but you are definitely not qualified to say they are wrong.
- Jed
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Randi's response:
You persist in inventing opinions and statements for me.
This discussion is over. Back to the Ivory Tower, where you are protected and comfortable.
As for the statements that do I make, I suggest that you not read the meanderings of my untrained mind. Isaac Asimov, Richard Feynman, and Carl Sagan would have disagreed with you on that assessment, and Murray Gell-Mann will presently agree that I have a bit more than amateur status.
James Randi.