Dan, I was a full time SAHM for nearly 10 years, and the job was generally very much considered to be about social pursuit- one attended some group of other SAH parents & offspring (increasingly dads are included, these days) almost every day, and was expected to network and connect. Intellectual pursuit, on the other hand, is extra to parenting- but not dependent on input from other adults. One can easily develop one's intellect by immersing in the culture- books, studying, learning about the culture are all accessible to people whose lives are based around home rather than offices (including older people, for example). As for selfhood- I don't think we should define our selves just by our primary work. Human beings are at the very least, responsible for evolving the growth of knowledge and improving life on the planet. That's a bigger identity than one's job, because it's about how you live and influence others, 24/7. Sometimes postal workers or teachers or street-cleaners are actually better people than presidents or big biz moguls. Maybe they have callings to do good in this world, in simple ways Donald Trump hasn't dreamed of, and maybe they do more good- how would we know? You raise the issue of exclusivity, and I entirely agree with you that it is unhealthy and wrong to consider excluding things as some kind of pathway to success. People only ever make this claim to justify their failures and their losses. The most a successful narrowly-living person could ever say would have to be, "Maybe, if I had become a kindergarten teacher instead, I would have met my soul-mate." There is no way anyone can ever know that for sure. Modesty is an underrated virtue, as Jackie said.

I could not agree more. It's the most underrated virtue of our times, too. But the meek will probably inherit the earth this time round, if only because no-one else has noticed! Go you! :-D

Jackie, I think you're getting at something important with the idea of skills or moral motivators being callings. We shouldn't be saying that it is a calling to achieve Level X of a career- it's the good you do once there, that matters, and is the calling. There's a bad bug in the American work ethic, which treats all success as good per se, and allows people to justify achieving power they may well abuse- but we still admire them for their sacrifices and their success. When in fact, any egomaniac will be *happy* to dump on their family, friends and values, in order to get into the position they're seeking. I'm not sure what Ben means by "non traditional work callings", or how it relates to your comment. I would say the point of the calling is not the job title, or success-level, but whatever you're going to do with it that's truly, objectively good: for the world, outside of yourself (crucially!) Also, you're right that great mothers nearly always do something else too- to be a great mom, you need to be happy and fulfilled in your life. Kids don't benefit as much from depressed, self-sacrifial mothering. I don't think there is another job/role where the rule of self-care as a primary requirement applies as powerfully as in mothering (not even fathering, which is less physically demanding.)It's the reason why some moms really are better off getting a lot of outside help- emotional inability to cope otherwise. I've met fairly high-powered moms who didn't have the emotional resilience to parent full-time. The office was less demanding, and actually recharged them. (How few people realise that we have an emotional "muscle" for this work, and that it can be consciously developed...) (Apologies for going further off topic.)

"Sacrifice" and "calling" are both words that originate in religion, and which had/still have a lot more meaning than just "the stuff you don't get to do because you decided to do something else instead". Hitler deliberately avoided marriage and family to focus on his successful career as a fascist dictator- did he "sacrifice" for his "calling"? It seems more appropriate to describe his choices as logically characteristic of a violent sociopath. Not all supersuccessful people are positively motivated. If we lose the meaning of words, we lose the ability to express complex ideas accurately. You may not feel like going much deeper with this, Ben, but your posts do still beg these bigger philosophical/ academic questions.

and another one!- you can change the world by joining a world-changing project, and working for it part-time. Your definition of "calling" is about satisfying one's own compulsion, not changing the world.

(my main point is on Ben's facebook page, but also...) plus of course, telling someone you'd love to get involved but can't because, "I have a calling, babe..." would be a very effective way to keep them at emotional arm's length- while making one look like an insufferably pompous ass ;-)

You have done drugs. Alcohol, and probably some of the minor painkillers, and maybe some of the mildly speedy drugs too eg. sudafed, which is somewhat like drinking coffee. Also probably coca-cola, which is like strong sweet coffee. You've also had dreams, which have a lot in common with some drug experiences, especially when vivid/ psychologically significant. And maybe you've had a fever which changed your consciousness-sensations too- many mild illnesses can affect mental perceptions. It is possible to get useful/ creative insights from altered mental states. That's why people take drugs for ADHD and depression too- to think better. But if you can learn to maximise your mind consciously, without chemicals, obviously that's going to be more useful and resilient. For most of us, relying on drugs is liable to make us less mentally fit without the drugs- if I drive everywhere, my cycling doesn't improve. Drugs are work. They require careful management, recovery, and they have side effects ranging from getting arrested to feeling like crap. Maybe worth it for some people, but probably only a small number of people who think they're worth it! And obviously, all of the above applies to alcohol as much as any other drug.

I don't think time heals *all* wounds- you have to put the work in, and work requires time. And the more intimate the relationship, the more work it takes, and the more likely it is you're going to feel wounded sometime.

I'm very sceptical about all this "deep" v. "shallow" conversation stuff. IME, some of the fluffiest things in life are the most important. But yes, if you want to analyse Dostoyevsky for hours, Twitter ain't the place... (I say that as one who genuinely does spend hours analysing academic-style issues for fun, at home- luckily my husband finds it charming!)

Great post. Agree with Chris- nothing beats work and practice. I spent a long time feeling baffled by people who managed to achieve a consistent "voice", passion, set of beliefs- pretty much anything. Why didn't they feel the same imperative to throw everything up in the air and see how it landed/ start again, that I had? Now I think constant change is some people's learning styles, and the consistent part just comes from the authenticity/ honesty/ integrity of the individual concerned. It may by much clearer from outside (as external views have perspective). But many artists repeatedly transform in what they do, and sometimes finding your Big Directive (voice, passion, whatever) is the wrong way of looking at it, or just tougher when you're not a one-track person. And students shouldn't take writing/ other art-training classes too literally. Maybe the teacher's ideas will work for you, maybe not- the teaching, like the practice, is much more experimental than in fact-based subjects.

I would agree with this wholeheartedly. It's possible for art to be well-executed but mean-spirited, manipululative, and quite evil. Good art illuminates our world in a very deep way, which tends to be powerfully uplifting and exhilirating even when it's tragic at the same time.

I'd call it "wisdom". The deep kind of knowledge some people acquire through experience. It gives a person innate authority in that area.

Dehumanization is what I was thinking of too. It can happen in many ways, including with people's consent. We need to differentiate between what's consentual and what is actually good for us. I think we're dumping the old religious judgements on this, but don't have much to replace it with.

The idea of perversion is based on the idea that there exists a range of normal sexual behaviours, the latter being constructive for human beings and the world, while the former is destructive. Western culture increasingly regards sexuality as being entirely subjective, ie not an area in which tastes themselves can be right or wrong, negative or beneficial. Our modern view is that when sexuality is destructive, this is because it involves coercion. Child abuse is considered wrong because children are considered unable to consent to sex. We blame paedophiles not for being perverted but for enacting their desires against the child's will. I think there is an argument however that human sexuality is a constructive force when invested in strong relationships, and potentially destructive when it turns into an obsessive or escapist hobby. So maybe healthy sexuality is about being excited and fulfilled by sharing with another person and wanting the same for them; whereas egotistical sexuality is about objectifying people like toys, which is at best harmless but at worst damaging or addictive.

Totally agree. Also, generally watching out for people who can't give & take constructive criticism in your social/ private life is v. important. Tip for people who may need to improve their skills in this area: start going to a drawing class. After a few 6 hr classes of having your efforts criticised in front of others, you learn how to handle it.

Looking forward to this one, I've been missing his energy, brilliance, vitality- nothing else like it. It's normal in artistic learning curves to need large chunks of time out for growth when nothing much finished gets done. Artists and record companies need to respect this. Creative longevity is better than burning out at 21.

Being in the moment, without the commentary, can take a lot of practice. I like Eckhart Tolle on this, despite not being a fan of new age baloney. Listening to his monotonous voice on an audio tape practically teaches meditational skills on its own. One does have to switch one's internal sceptical analysis app. off, of course- and that's the whole point. Not everyone realises this stuff can be dealt with, or that it can be lethal. We tend to focus on whether the "self-talk" is positive or negative, and whether it's our voice or internalised commentary from influential others, rather then how to get it to shut the hell up already. But inner peace is a good thing.

Trev, yes, it does. Ted Bailey, I agree with you. There is no reason in the world why Mr Sharan should be considered wrong in his estimate of his own wellbeing. He is only one person! It's very dangerous to apply generalisations to everyone, as if they were absolute rules. Even positive psychology does not claim (I think) that every one of us must need X and Y, without any possibility of an exception in the entire human race. Let's be careful not to let our improved general knowledge turn into negative personal judgements, ie. prejudice against those who do not "fit in" to our views.

There is also the role of intuition in making decisions- it's been shown to be very important, but wouldn't show up if you were only looking for rationality and thoughtfulness.

I love what Dan says about religion. I recently read a horrific account of a battered wife "forgiving" her violent husband in front of a large church audience, claiming to have forgotten all about it- and going back home to the same problems, which nobody did anything to address. It's a very abused concept.

Vince, Your comment shows very clearly that we don't actually all mean the same thing by this word "forgiveness". My idea of it is all about your own peace of mind, and nothing to do with the person you're forgiving. You don't have to talk to them ever again to do it. You certainly don't owe them forgiveness. Forgiveness is never a moral obligation, it's purely for your own benefit. It absolutely definitely does not mean you ever speak to them or do anything with them again. It's about your wellbeing, not psychic powers. I blame certain religious sects for messing up our thinking on this. As soon as you make forgiving obligatory, it becomes fake and meaningless, and all about making the bad guy feel better, which is pretty much a reversal of what it ought to be (something enormously beneficial to people who have suffered crap from others)

Forgiveness is widely misunderstood. You can forgive a person while still remaining realistic about their personality and issues, and the place they are entitled to, or should, or that you want them to (and it is up to you) occupy in your life. The idea that "I forgive you" means "I'm going to treat you like my sane and kind friends, even though you are a f***ed-up maniac" is a widespread and tragic mistake. Forgive in the sense of letting go of the negativity the person has brought into your life. Be nice, at a suitably safe and easily maintained distance. (Some people even call this "friends", having a wide range of uses for that word). And then get on with your life the way you want to get on with it, whether it includes tolerating but ignoring the person's nonsense one day a year, responding briefly if they talk first, or never speaking to them again. The moral conundrum is more whether you should stand by and say nothing while the person messes other people around the same way they did with you, but that's another issue.

"My goals in life: To love, be loved, and never stop learning." - Tim Ferriss. That's pretty damn good. Those are mine, tho I would add happiness. This one made me go yay! Maybe happiness comes from adding more goals (eg what the pos. psych. people say), rather than being a goal you can do in & of itself? Seems less concrete than the others.

You're actually arguing in favour of the kind of homeschooling I used to do and advocate (my kids are in school now for practical reasons). When kids and young people have the time, space, resources and support to identify and pursue their talents, fascinations, passions etc, that's the best kind of learning they can do. I now believe this understanding will revolutionise college learning rather than children's learning, because most families don't have the stamina or resources to offer homeschooling of this kind, whereas most young people at college are paying thousands of dollars to be taught to jump through hoops without asking questions. Having said all that, when I was a student at Cambridge University, we did have to write all my own essay titles. It was a very genuinely educational course (Eng. Lit), based on finding things out for yourself, choosing your own subjects to a wide extent. American education is unusually and extremely prescriptive, from a European POV. (more to say, I'll try to blog about it)