Passion

Passion

I want to reiterate to anyone reading these – I throw these together in about an hour. I get them down just to organize my thoughts and work on my writing flow, but many of the topics are personal. Also, I attempted explaining interactions within the brain, and hope I didn’t butcher these – I have researched this topic, but never had any formal classes to explain it.

On occasion I find myself nostalgically reminiscing over past memories. School, relationships, sports, traditions, experiences with family and friends are all themes pondered during this unprovoked walks down memory lane. I appreciate the ability to mentally recall the experiences that have each played a role in the formation of my personality. After all, aside from our genetically inherited biological temperament, our experiences evolve our personality over the course of our life. Susan Cain eloquently explains, “Temperament refers to inborn, biologically based behavioral and emotional patterns that are observable in infancy and early childhood; personality is the complex brew that emerges after cultural influence and personal experience are thrown into the mix” (Quiet, 101). What intrigue me about this recollection process are two things:

1)  Why do we typically remember prior events in a more positive light than when they were experienced in ‘real time’?

A dilemma not uncommon, but not easily explainable.  Our brains store traumatic or emotionally stressful experiences differently than positive experiences, which could effect the recall process. I wonder though, how much of this mental withholding of negative experience is subconscious. We are creatures who rely very much on the status of our egos, and it would not surprise me if we subconsciously paint an optimistic picture of our historical experiences. This would preserve our pride and allow (some) of the negativity to remain in the shadows of our subconscious, allowing us to maintain a constructive remembrance of our stimulus. While this may be a reasonable proposition, I don’t pretend to be remotely correct, but it is something I will continue to research.

2)      Why do I recall instances of unjaded, passionate, excited anticipation, that I no longer seem to find?

Think of Christmas Eve/morning as a kid, or the first day of school, or the start of football or basketball season. Think Prom, first day of summer, shopping for school clothes, summer camp, dating, and the plethora of other experiences that pumped an intense emotional jolt of energy into your veins; those metaphorical butterflies that felt like 10,000 volts of energy. You would feel an emotional high until the event, where you would passionately dive in, without a second thought. I can’t think of a specific period of time where I stopped experiencing this, but it was sometime after high school.

There are three possibilities I can see being the reason for this dilemma. First, it could be interaction between sections of our brain. The amygdala is described as being responsible for emotions, survival instincts, and memory.  It is the amygdala that reacts first to sensory experiences and expresses fear differently for different personality types (extroverted versus introverted). It could also be possible that anticipation, as an emotionally inverse expression from fear, could be initiated by the amygdala. Now, another part of the brain called the prefrontal cortex is responsible for planning cognitive behavior, personality expression and decision making. In the book Quiet (mentioned above), social conditioning can cause the prefrontal cortex to increase in activity, which correlates to a decrease in activity of the amygdala. In English that means our cognitive expression can limit the impact of our amygdala, which limits acting on emotion. Granted, it is important to understand if other variables are introduced such as stress, anxiety or other requirements from the prefrontal cortex to process, its ability to limit the amygdala is reduced or dissipated. If we consider both fear and unbridled, compassionate anticipation as emotional responses, it isn’t inaccurate to assume they are initiated by the amygdala. If the prefrontal cortex has the ability to restrict our action based on input from the amygdala, then our cognitive evaluation in the prefrontal cortex could restrain our zealous anticipation. It would determine this based on results from historical personal experience.

The second possibility is somewhat related to the initial idea. As we accumulate social and cultural experience, we are introduced to the harsh reality of life. As a more accurate picture is painted of our wonderfully complex world, we become realists. Unfortunately, realism tends to equate to a cynical perspective. If the cognitive determinations formed in your prefrontal cortex are driven by cynicality, it is more likely to restrain emotional response from the amygdala (to avoid emotional attachment or investment in an outcome, projecting the odds in a pessimistically leaning stance).  I doubt this is the case, because as expressed above, the prefrontal cortex does not have a monopoly on the amygdala, other variables are often present, allowing the amygdala to influence the host.  This would cause intermittent expression from the amygdala, rather than it seemingly stopping to contribute emotional response after a given point during your life.

The third possibility is difficult to accept, but it has the most upside. It’s possible that if we are willing to evaluate our lives on a particular level of introspection, we will realize the issue is self-initiated. Experiences could have influenced us in a way we avoid particular topics or experiences in general.  The emotional aspects of your amygdala could be constantly hedging against your expression of passion, for it is that passion that resulted in such negativity in your experiences thus far. Your prefrontal cortex’s evaluation of the cognitive situation could be in sync with this determination made by the amygdala, realizing investment of compassion or anticipation typically doesn’t result in positive benefit to the host. Depending on your stance on free will, from here you can choose to evaluate new possibilities, and re-open yourself to the unjaded anticipation or passion you felt years ago. I tend to be a deterministic compatibilist with regard to free will. Determinist, meaning our decisions are a product of experiences which occurred prior; a domino effect of experiences which have lead us to this very point in time. Compatibilists believe that free will fits within this model; while all of our prior experiences lead us to where we are now, we have a choice based on those experiences to choose from a list of options. To circle back around to how this is positive to my third possibility – if we are not biologically restrained from feeling that same sense of naïve passion, anticipation or excitement, then we may choose to pursue something, or someone that does incite those feelings within us. It’s possible that, somewhere along the way, I got into the routine of ‘checking the box’ and moving forward on tangible pieces of mental growth, but lost sight over the emotional expression. We only have a limited amount of time, limited amount of energy to grow particular areas within our lives, and until we make passion or love of life a priority, it will patiently wait until you do (if you ever do). I think it’s so easy to fall into a routine where emotion is ignored, in a world that seems to thrive on negativity and isn’t getting any better. However, high risk also has the opportunity for high reward, and until you drop the defensive walls and pursue something with passion, you will continue your dismal, colorless existence.

Those years where I embraced my passion, didn’t get hung up on overthinking the outcomes, and jumped in headfirst to everything I did, were the best years of my life. That alone should be enough to make me want to start living that way again, because after trying the alternative for a few years, I’ve noticed, the grass is not greener on the other side.  

Growth

Growth

A person's ability to disseminate information through instruction and communicate a process/issue is a direct reflection of their level of comprehension of that subject. The duration of time someone spends in a particular role does not always equate to competence or conceptual understanding / ample mastery of the skill-set needed to excel in that role. Jobs within the finance industry require a relatively analogous set of technical skills, yet there is an assumed ‘barrier to entry’ across finance distinctions. While much of the data, inputs and vernacular are the same, there are definite hurdles that discourage movement across the finance community, even within the same company.

Finance professionals in any setting will unanimously agree that unknown variables introduce risk in forecasting.  This same logic applies to roles in the finance community; the less you know about a different role within finance, the more volatile the result could be considering a move to the new group. Most people are happiest when they are comfortable, and frequent movement between roles in any distinction creates change and disrupts comfortability.

While change may discourage movement for psychological reasons, it should never be a professional deterrent. In order to find success in your career past being a mid-level employee, movement is not only advised, it is required. You cannot attain a diverse enough perspective unless you force yourself into unknown areas of the business. Once the learning curve has been met and you feel you’re getting into a routine - that is actually a comfortable sense of intellectual stagnation setting in. Think of a carpenter working for hours to sand down a rough hunk of wood into a wonderfully ornate silhouette – once the worst has been overcome, the surface becomes simpler to fashion. The resistance has been eroded, giving way to a smooth foundation in which the focus shifts towards perfecting the intricacies of the piece.

Every job requires you to adapt and acquire a specific compilation of technical expertise. In many cases this expertise is different from anything you’d acquired from educational or professional experience prior to the role, but take comfort in the knowledge that this learning curve is felt by everyone in any profession. Jobs typically do not have barriers to enter from a technical knowledge perspective, unless you are an astrophysicist or rocket scientist. I am speaking more generically towards economics, business, finance, and other interrelated professions. The difficulty is not born from entering a particular expertise, it is typically derived from a given department’s lack of 3 things:

1)      Documentation and examples of historical practice, work instructions and informational documents to help facilitate the enculturation process and movement of employees in and out of the department.

2)      Strong subject matter expertise residing amongst the remaining team – conceptual working knowledge of systems and processes,  a perspective of how the particular department interacts with and effects both internal and external customers, the ‘who, what, when, where and whys’ of any given process or procedure, and the ability to disseminate this information to management, new employees, internal and external customers.

3)      Universalized best practices utilized by the company: all similar departments follow a best practice for shared reports, processes, reporting functions, etc to facilitate uniformity and build on an already strong fundamental base of knowledge across a given company.

The three things above seem to be the biggest hurdles, from small nonprofit companies to big corporations.  You’ll often hear people mention, “We are all replaceable.” While that may not be the easiest contention to accept, it is true. The vast majority of people in any given industry, in any given department, are wonderfully replaceable. Many people don’t work to stand out, or to push their intellectual bounds; they work for a paycheck or to ‘punch the clock’. Whether your motivation is to ‘just get the job done’ or you’re lacking intelligence to do more, the fact remains the same – you are replaceable. Everyone in a company is actually replaceable. The number of people in a company employed for their aptitude for strategic decisions, utilization of their unbounded technical knowledge and unsurpassed leadership skills, are less than 2% of the total employees, and even less are given the power to utilize their full skill-set.  Think of a company comprised of 20,000 employees; 2% would mean 400 are key employees (cream of the crop, upper levels of management, etc), and even less than that are given ‘full reign’ to act on their own intuition. This should come as no surprise to say that these 400 are also replaceable.  There are less people attainable with the aptitude required to fill those roles, but as there are fewer roles, they can be competed on a larger scale and attract necessary talent to backfill in any case.

This started off as an informative blurb to what one might expect when changing roles across a company or industry, but then took a turn into the unapologetic, generic nature of many of our jobs.  The important thing at the end of the day is growth. If you are always looking to grow, whether personally, professionally, intellectually or emotionally, you will be building the tool set needed to make yourself an asset. An asset not only to an organization, but to your friends, in a relationship and to the world. If you strive to grow areas in your life you are lacking, you will stand out from the crowd. That type of reckless ambition is so brilliantly refreshing in a world that seems bogged down by negativity and selfishness.