Why we should all learn to give up

First off, I should address the title, yes it is designed to draw you in, which means that if you the reader are reading this, it worked out!

I should also mention that it isn't just an eye-catching title but the point this post hopes to convey. Now before you set your torches on fire and sharpen your pitchforks, let me explain why I think this idea holds merit.

We've been taught since we could talk that we shouldn't ever give up, no matter what odds are against us, if we persist in the face of difficulty we'll eventually win...or so the adage goes. As human beings we have the tendency to want what's best for our current situation, it is only natural to want to succeed. The downfall of this mentality however is that we start to perceive things differently from what they actually are to fit them into this view which could lead to lapses in judgement.

Let me explain with an example, a writer is given the opportunity to write a column for a popular newspaper. The writer is ecstatic because this might be his chance to make himself known. 

He works hard, burning the midnight oil and produces an article every day for a week, each of high quality with well-informed sources and of intellectual merit. However, the public doesn't respond with the enthusiasm he expected. The writer can't believe what he's hearing! 

All that work for nought? The writer tells himself that there must have been something wrong with his work. So he gets back into his work with even more vigour and effort. Yet the people aren't satisfied with what he's putting up. So the cycle repeats.

Now when we check the writer's actions against the idea of "never give up", he isn't doing anything wrong. He's following the idea perfectly, then why isn't he achieving the results he desires? That's simply because this adage isn't "one size fits all", it isn't meant to be relevant in every situation so it doesn't make sense to repeatedly do an action and expect different results. Then why do we do this? This is because we tend to simplify the most complicated matters and ideas into simple concepts, black and white, good or bad and right or wrong. Our brain handles a large number of simple problems with ease, one complex problem can make our life a living nightmare.

Realistically, our situations are extremely complicated, and so to deal with these problems or issues, we'll have to find solutions patiently and using multiple perspectives. While this does take more time than our current methods I believe that it is better to be right and slow, rather than wrong and fast.

Now, this kind of thought process is particularly harmful to our perception of self and society, going back to our example with the writer, he eventually starts to blame the people who read the paper, the ones who aren't interested in his content. 'They can't see my genius!' he reasons to himself and slowly he gains a superiority complex when in reality the people reading just aren't interested in the type of work he puts out and it doesn't have anything to do with the quality of his content.

The other path his thought process may go down is one of self-loathing. 'Oh, I don't write well enough to keep them interested in my content, my writing is pathetic.' When yet again it isn't his fault that people don't read his work, it's just that both parties want something different from each other. This isn't any better for him either

The reader may now be curious as to what solution I propose to this conundrum, I simply suggest that the writer gives up.

I came upon this idea while reading Phil Knight's memoir 'Shoe Dog'(I cannot recommend it enough). He's one of the co-founders of Nike a company that needs no introduction and the book details his struggles and victories in establishing Nike as one of the most successful sporting apparel companies in the world.

One of his biggest fears, while he was building up his fledgling company was that his company could fall apart due to the lack of cash infusions. However he says that he was fully expecting and even waiting for the collapse of his company(to paraphrase), he says that "giving up" now would slow his plan down to expand his company but it would give him a very valuable resource, insight. Giving up didn't mean failure, rather it meant an opportunity to re-channel his efforts into something bigger and better!

Coming back once more to the writer, what if he had considered the perspective of the people who read the paper? Perhaps make his column about local news? Or maybe even a gossip column? And if he could not shift from his method of writing perhaps what he needed was a new audience who could understand his work better and appreciate it for what it is.

To gain this insight, you can introspect or seek help from another person, which is why constructive criticism is one of the most valuable tools for a writer. The writer is biased from the genesis of the article because he created it, another person has no relation to the article and therefore is unbiased.

What does it all boil down to ultimately?

Sometimes it's important that we take a step back, maybe take a breather and look at this issue with or without the help of others, that one moment of introspection may well end being the reason for the creation of your best work.

However this advice must be used carefully because if the issue is created by a lack of effort on your end, you're just trading out one problem for another, so yet again I stress the importance of introspection.

Tune out all the noise around you for a moment, think about things with more objectivity, with more clarity and in the heart of the problem you will find your solution