I think it’s part biology, part ability, part society. It’s the rush hour of life because organically everything happens at the same time: the time to build both a career and a family, so these take centre stage. Doesn’t make this fact good or bad, it’s just factual. I have friends who lounge all day in their 40s because they collect some rental income. They also did that in their 20s, but what looked like paradise when they were 20-30 now looks sad as hell, and instead of “cool cat” they now look like “great load of nothing, living off rents, from houses he neither built, bought, or maintains, not enough money to really live well, no skills/qualifications to actually be able to make money if they need to”. To put it bluntly, going on a shoestring budget trip in Greek islands was much cheaper in 2000 than in 2024, and chasing girls becomes much harder when you’re 40-something without much to show for it, and no real prospect of it improving.
The article doesn’t conclude on something to be able to answer if I have similar thoughts or not. To be honest I found what she’s saying to be so shallow and devoid of substance that it’s not even worth my time to dissect it, even the serious bullshit like “do construction for 30 years, then do something else, or volunteer or do family stuff”. Is there a big demand for 50-year old ex-builders, or will they pluck money off the money tree to live?
I reject the premise that many people shelf their goals, even more their dreams. From my life experience most people have the impulse control of my dog with an unguarded piece of meat, or my children with WAAAYYYY excess candy after Basel Fasnacht last week. And why is delayed gratification a bad thing? The article says “because when you reach the ability (real or perceived, I add) to realise your dream you’ll be different”. So, is it suggesting that you miss a dream realised because you didn’t do it in the right time? I counter by saying that if you change and the dream is no longer meaningful then it’s also no longer valuable, and time doesn’t go back. Regret is the real poison, living in a fantasy land where “It will be great when X happens” is something I’ve done a lot of, and it’s cost me a lot in regret, but I lacked clarity (and experience), so I’m shocked that the psychology Prof in the article doesn’t help the reader by even defining the difference between:
- not doing something because you can’t find the time
- not doing something because you don’t even know you want it
Adopting some part of the FIRE mentality has given me what I missed since deciding to drop out of academia: goals, and the satisfaction of achieving them. Sure, I spend less, but it’s not because I’m frugal (I’m not, I just save more because I make more because I came to CH) or because I do a discounted cashflow analysis on cheapskated rappen, but it’s because I now know more and understand what will give me actual satisfaction vs temporary vs be a hassle (hassles I do if they impact my personal revenue), or would be meaningful to other people who’re meaningful to me, like my wife, children, friends, some blood relatives.
To put it very simply and personally, since you asked for personal opinions: my goal since I was a kid was to become an academic (researcher as well as educator), when this goal failed I simply worked for subsistence and for achieving arbitrary short-term goals, however after a few (good, very happy, admittedly) years I realised that I wasn’t getting any younger, pension systems were a ponzi scheme, and all these happy things I’d done were actually making the future pretty shaky (because most of them cost a lot of money) which in turn gave me stress any time I’d think about something else I wanted to do.
Coming back to academia, a trigger when all my supervisor’s alumni came together for his retirement conference (he is a big deal, Sir/FRS, professor of 30 years, people came from China, Japan, Uruguay, Brazil, US, Canada and all over Europe) was realising that those who made it their goal to leave the university had done well, and those who made it their goal to stay in university had also done well, and there were a couple of people like me who were neither here not there - not bad or unsuccessful in any way, just behind those who were determined and focused on something.
So now, with full clarity of purpose, delayed gratification is not the goal, but it’s the means to get to the goal, so it’s worth it and fulfilling. Edit 2: I 100% agree with what appears to be Prof Freund’s research that goal-setting is critical.
Edit: this is the publication in question, I’ll look to read it at some point: APA PsycNet, the abstract suggests it’s quite a bit more interesting than the interview, but see this part, does it make much sense?
“Results provide first evidence for both, a direct negative tainting and an indirect positive bolstering effect. Greater perceived shelving-related opportunity costs on a day predicted lower valuation of, commitment toward, and planned efforts for the prioritized goal on that day. However, greater perceived shelving-related opportunity costs also predicted perceptions of greater investment, which in turn predicted greater valuation of, commitment toward, and planned efforts for the prioritized goal”
So, both at once? Need to remind my stance that psychology, like economics, is an art and humanity, not a science. Sprinkling some p values in does not a science make.
