neverwhere: New Yorkers

New Yorkers

New Yorkers think an interesting life is more important than a happy life. What you really pay for with the exorbitant cost of living and the hard lifestyle is to be surrounded by strong performers, huge ambitions, and constant need for change and innovation. To live in New York City, you have to trade happiness for this.

On balance, New Yorkers understand that most people who are happy are complacent – they like the status quo. And people who like what they have do not do innovative things to change the world. They like the world just fine how it is.

If this is true, then I would not make a good New Yorker at all.

Who is this woman? This is the most ridiculous litmus test on whether or not one belongs in New York City that I’ve ever seen.

Lets start with the last of her three criteria, highlighted above. Interestingness does not preclude happiness, nor vice versa. Learning to be happy with what you have is not in any way related to complacent inaction or lacking a desire to improve the world; it is merely being happy with what you have in the moment. One can be happy and still crave change. In fact, one’s ability to be happy is directly related to how adaptable one is to change — circumstances are constantly changing; they are never static. So, to lead the best life possible, be satisfied with who you are and what you have in the moment, while continuously striving for improvement. You can do that in New York or anywhere else.

Also, you don’t have to give up happiness to live in New York; you just have to be patient with all those factors over which you have no control, which are perhaps more numerous in New York.

Her whole definition of an Optimizer is ridiculous. Is she talking about someone who always wants something better? Or the best? The word “best” suggests something finite, searching for something actually attainable, while optimizers are never satisfied with what they have, which suggests always looking for something better. At least get your word usage correct.

Furthermore, living in New York is absolutely NOTHING like having children. I suppose it could be a harder lifestyle, but you know what? It’s not that bad. I would imagine comparing living in NYC to having a child is an insult to parents everywhere. And don’t most parents look at their children as blessings and not hardships?

As humans, we’re inherently adaptable, and no matter where your life takes you, you’ll figure out how to make it work, should it be a booming metropolis or a small town in the middle of nowhere. I’ve lived in both and in between; obviously they all have their trade-offs. Yeah, New York is expensive, but salaries are higher and it’s completely possible to live modestly. Yeah, you’ll have a roommate and a small apartment, and you’ll probably spend a fair amount of time on the subway, but if you want to live there without throwing away half your salary on rent, that’s how you do it.

As for actually having kids AND living in New York… Not the best idea if you’re not rich or somehow own an apartment outright.

And this is the best:

In many cases, people have to work in NYC in order to rise to the top in their field. (Or, they want to marry someone like this – NYC is a very competitive place to find a husband but only because women recognize that the pickings are superior: Optimization knows no bounds.)

Um, wow. The pickings are anything but superior. If you’re looking for wealthy workaholic mates, maybe. But if that’s your definition of superior… Ew. You’re not the only one who’ll be looking to trade up.

All in all, I’d imagine this woman’s limited view of living in New York doesn’t mesh with many New Yorkers’ realities. It certainly doesn’t at all resonate with my own experience.

16 June 2009 • via: jingc

Comments (View) 14 notes

neverwhere

New Yorkers

Info

Twitter Updates