Ambition: What's the deal?

[Els]

What if someone works at an okay job, but in their free time they enjoy playing Xbox, and seeing friends. Even though they're working, is that still not having enough drive, is it still not good enough? What should they do as well as working everyday in order to have drive or be ambitious?

 

This sounds fine to me.

 

I see ambition very differently from most people - I see it as someone defining their life goals and setting out a plan to achieve them. If their life goal is to get an okay job that allows them a lot of free time to play Xbox and see friends, that's great. If their life goal is to have a family, great. Or if it's to help out at the Peace Corps, great. It doesn't have to be about money and status.

 

What I define as lack of ambition, and what I cannot STAND, is people who refuse to do anything to achieve what they want, and then constantly sit down and complain about not being able to get it.

[Ross MwcFan]

Ross to me it sounds like you're killing time and also worried about the people who would end your welfare. You are aware of the reaility it is out of your control as you've given up control of your life.

 

As far as I'm concerned if you don't want to do anything with your life other then play video games and be entertained I have no problem with it what so ever. I do how ever think you should be aware of the reality that some one has to work. I'm against welfare in all formst and what we now have is the welfare/warfare state. I want people who would want to make themselves a charity case to make themselves a charity case and not live out their lives off the tax payers dime devaluing the curency and causeing mass ammounts of money to be redistributed under the guise of welfare often times to anything but.

 

I feel sorry for you too if you don't feel pasionate enough about anything in your life to work for it. I don't hate you.

 

I also feel sorry for you because you 'need' to always chase something in order to feel happy and content, once you achieve your goals you still wont be able to feel happy and content. And that's no different from someone who always needs a drink in his hand in order to feel happy, or someone who always needs to be in a relationship and can never be single in order to be happy.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Ross MwcFan

[Dust]

I also feel sorry for you because you 'need' to always chase something in order to feel happy and content, once you achieve your goals you still wont be able to feel happy and content. And that's no different from someone who always needs a drink in his hand in order to feel happy, or someone who always needs to be in a relationship and can never be single in order to be happy.

 

You deny your nature and are happy living as if you have no free will thats on you. Seems more like you're chasing the next drink than I.

[Ross MwcFan]

You deny your nature and are happy living as if you have no free will thats on you. Seems more like you're chasing the next drink than I.

 

There's a few things I want to chase in life (getting a job I enjoy, getting a decent place, etc), but once I've got those things I'll be happy and content and I wont need to chase anything else.

[Dust]

There's a few things I want to chase in life (getting a job I enjoy, getting a decent place, etc), but once I've got those things I'll be happy and content and I wont need to chase anything else.

 

ok well that sounds like ambition. You should take steps and work toward that goal. In the mean time enjoy the steps, and enjoy trying. It's not all about getting what you want so yes be happy just to have tried.

 

I get confused what you're talking about some times because you seem to make asumptions that arn't there.

[Ross MwcFan]

I have no desire to be ambitious for the sake of being ambitious though.

[TheBigQuestion]

That's really deep. How do you do too.

 

It's undeniable. You really think a culture that raises its children to believe that they all deserve prizes and trophies just for participating in something rather than excelling in it will turn them into ambitious, competitive people?

[Ross MwcFan]

People without ambition are losers. This is why they're looked down on.

 

Since when is it bad to have goals, or to achieve all that one can in life?

 

That's like calling someone a loser or looking down on them just because of the clothes they wear, or just because they're not like you. That speaks more about you than it does the person, and actually makes it you who is the loser.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with having goals. But always feeling like you need to achieve something no matter what you've already achieved, or wanting to be ambitious just for the sake of being ambitious, probably means you have other issues that need to be addressed.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Ross MwcFan

[zengirl]

Ross,

 

This is the difference between ambition and materialism. Sometimes when people say others aren't "ambitious" enough what they really mean is that they aren't materialistic enough -- they don't want enough things or enough status or enough money or the 'right' things or whatever. And sometimes they truly mean the person has no ambition, no drive, no inner passion, etc.

 

If your passion is to play video games and you can support yourself financially, you've nothing to be ashamed of. Nothing whatsoever.

 

Just to be clear I want the world where no one has to work and people can just sit around fishing all day or what ever they want. I think that world is much more achievable through freedom not the welfare state. The welfare state leads to an all powerful capitol such as depicted in the hunger games... where every one is starving and life is cheap. Wealth all being centralized to some far off capitol.

 

So in escence the more sheeple with no ambition the more one crazy guy can control you all.

 

I love The Hunger Games books (haven't seen the movie yet) but I have NO IDEA how one links welfare to The Hunger Games. If anything, there's a distinct lack of welfare in THG. The only welfare is a trade -- poorer kids trade higher risk chances at being in the games for enough grain to feed themselves, when they can't. That's not actually welfare, except at it's most F-ed up heights, where you risk a chance to die violently for a chance at surviving the year. It's a good analogy to our class system today---during hard times, the rich and the poor might both be victims but the poor are more likely to be victims of the evils of the world (disease, crime, etc) due to a lack of options. The Capitol does not provide welfare to its people and instead basically bleeds them dry, much like capitalism unfettered does. In short, I think you missed the metaphor there.

[Dust]

I love The Hunger Games books (haven't seen the movie yet) but I have NO IDEA how one links welfare to The Hunger Games. If anything, there's a distinct lack of welfare in THG. The only welfare is a trade -- poorer kids trade higher risk chances at being in the games for enough grain to feed themselves, when they can't. That's not actually welfare, except at it's most F-ed up heights, where you risk a chance to die violently for a chance at surviving the year. It's a good analogy to our class system today---during hard times, the rich and the poor might both be victims but the poor are more likely to be victims of the evils of the world (disease, crime, etc) due to a lack of options. The Capitol does not provide welfare to its people and instead basically bleeds them dry, much like capitalism unfettered does. In short, I think you missed the metaphor there.

 

Apply that logic to what goes on with teens joining the military.

 

You have to ask what happened to all our money here in the US? Why arn't more people challenging the debt that gave us no benefit.

 

I've only seen the movie as a girl who read the books wanted to see it with me. The thing is I saw an all controling state with many laws such as no growing food or hunting that controled the disbursment of all food. That is welfare. That is where welfare leads.

 

Ross being content being on welfare with the reality that he is able to work is very materielistic. Should he be ashamed no. Should he want more and get satisfactioin out of doing more the sense of taking what little control he has in the world. The control to try. Yes he should take that small bit of control and experience being alive. Not just being.

[Anela]

 

 

 

I love The Hunger Games books (haven't seen the movie yet) but I have NO IDEA how one links welfare to The Hunger Games. If anything, there's a distinct lack of welfare in THG. The only welfare is a trade -- poorer kids trade higher risk chances at being in the games for enough grain to feed themselves, when they can't. That's not actually welfare, except at it's most F-ed up heights, where you risk a chance to die violently for a chance at surviving the year. It's a good analogy to our class system today---during hard times, the rich and the poor might both be victims but the poor are more likely to be victims of the evils of the world (disease, crime, etc) due to a lack of options. The Capitol does not provide welfare to its people and instead basically bleeds them dry, much like capitalism unfettered does. In short, I think you missed the metaphor there.

 

I think that Dust is referring to this quote from President Snow, in the movie:

 

"President Snow: Hope, it is the only thing stronger than fear. A little hope is effective, alot of hope is dangerous. This fact is fine, as long as it's contained."

 

That wasn't in the books. Although I thought it was out of place in the movie, since nobody seems to have hope - unless they're from the sectors that produce the "careerists".

 

*edit. Oh! Dust hadn't posted when I was writing my post.

[NeverDated]

That's like calling someone a loser or looking down on them just because of the clothes they wear, or just because they're not like you. That speaks more about you than it does the person, and actually makes it you who is the loser.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with having goals. But always feeling like you need to achieve something no matter what you've already achieved, or wanting to be ambitious just for the sake of being ambitious, probably means you have other issues that need to be addressed.

You're falling into a politically correct trap here and painting all forms of judgement with the same brush. Judging someone for the clothes they wear is not necessarily a bad thing - if they are habitually dirty or ripped, that tells me the person does not take pride in their appearance. Judging someone as an inferior person because their clothes cost less than mine is making many large assumptions about that person that, more often than not, are unfounded.

 

Someone who is content doing nothing but one repetitive task day in and day out (ie, playing video games) is a boring individual. It's fairly safe to say that someone who has zero motivation to improve their life or ambition to chase bigger goals has very little to offer. That isn't to say they are necessarily untalented, but their talent is ultimately going to waste because they don't do anything of substance.

 

You're also, as Dust pointed out, making assumptions on things that aren't there. Ambitious people aren't so out of some feeling of obligation to keep a full to-do list - we don't check off an item then feel compelled to immediately replace it because we "must" have something to strive for. Rather it's an organic process. You complete a task, but along the way you're exposed to other things you'd like to experience. Has absolutely nothing to do with being content or happy with life.

 

It seems you're assuming the ambitious are that way to fill some kind of "void" or scratch an itch. Also seems as if you're attempting to turn ambition into some form of neurosis to justify your lack of it.

[Ross MwcFan]

Says who? We are judged by our contribution to life. Somebody who doesn't contribute much is a loser.

 

And why can't people judge others by the clothes they wear?

 

They can I guess, but they shouldn't, and if they do it just makes them *******s.

 

Do you think it would be fair of me to think you're a loser and look down on you because I don't like your username? Would that make me a nice person?

Edited April 3, 2012 by Ross MwcFan

[Ross MwcFan]

You're falling into a politically correct trap here and painting all forms of judgement with the same brush. Judging someone for the clothes they wear is not necessarily a bad thing - if they are habitually dirty or ripped, that tells me the person does not take pride in their appearance. Judging someone as an inferior person because their clothes cost less than mine is making many large assumptions about that person that, more often than not, are unfounded.

 

Someone who is content doing nothing but one repetitive task day in and day out (ie, playing video games) is a boring individual. It's fairly safe to say that someone who has zero motivation to improve their life or ambition to chase bigger goals has very little to offer. That isn't to say they are necessarily untalented, but their talent is ultimately going to waste because they don't do anything of substance.

 

You're also, as Dust pointed out, making assumptions on things that aren't there. Ambitious people aren't so out of some feeling of obligation to keep a full to-do list - we don't check off an item then feel compelled to immediately replace it because we "must" have something to strive for. Rather it's an organic process. You complete a task, but along the way you're exposed to other things you'd like to experience. Has absolutely nothing to do with being content or happy with life.

 

It seems you're assuming the ambitious are that way to fill some kind of "void" or scratch an itch. Also seems as if you're attempting to turn ambition into some form of neurosis to justify your lack of it.

 

I'm not sure if I see it as some sort of neurosis.

[Teknoe]

Ross, people who are TOO chill are often thought of as apathetic. As someone else said, it's subjective. But, if you hitch your wagon to an apathetic person, you will likely have to carry the load of the relationship as someone posted.

 

I find ladies are simply drawn to men who are passionate about good things in life. Men who never stop growing, who are always learning. You don't have to be Mr. 10 Activities Everyday kind of passionate, but SOME passion in SOME positive field that isn't merely playing video games or watching DVDs.

 

It does sound like you have some ambition beyond that, though.

 

Honestly, I think a lot of this stuff is in your head. And I think posting too much of it on LoveShack is only hurting you. Quit overanalyzing, and just live life. When you're posting issue after issue month after month it's time to stop, re-evaluate, and see that all your posting hasn't done you much good. In fact, it might have become paralysis by analysis at some point. For some LS posters, I get the feeling they're posting because they know they can easily produce 20 page 200 reply threads. It's a form of safe, anonymous attention that just distracts you from actual self-improvement. it's the same cycle day after day, week after week, month after month. At some point, these people have gone from using to abusing the internet message board medium, and it's no longer about an honest self-improvement check here and there, but an anonymous feeding of one's own self-sabotage.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Teknoe

[Eclypse]

I don't have a problem with non ambitious people. They can do whatever makes them happy. Isn't that after all what our grandfathers fought for?

 

But I do have an issue if that person is using welfare money to fund their xbox or whatever other habit they have. This is money that other people earned. If you can survive without that, then I don't care at all. If you have inheritance money, or you got a payout from work, or won the lottery etc thats all fine. But if someone refuses to work but still wants public money to fund their video games then that's not right.

 

If you are working a job and earning money, then no person on earth will care if you go home and play Xbox 7 hours straight each night after work.

[zengirl]

Apply that logic to what goes on with teens joining the military.

 

You have to ask what happened to all our money here in the US? Why arn't more people challenging the debt that gave us no benefit.

 

I was challenging the debt when it was happening -- when GWB was spending our money on illegal wars and bailouts for his corporate buddies in the banking industry (yep, he got that ball rolling and did the worst of it), I was challenging it.

 

The laws that actually spend our money on services for the common welfare -- which the Constitution asks the federal government to provide for -- those I were not challenging.

 

I've only seen the movie as a girl who read the books wanted to see it with me. The thing is I saw an all controling state with many laws such as no growing food or hunting that controled the disbursment of all food. That is welfare. That is where welfare leads.

 

No, that is not where welfare leads. That is ridiculous. European countries that provide better welfare for their citizenry are certainly no closer than the world of THG than we are. You have no proof or evidence as basis for your claim. At any rate, I haven't seen the movie but if they made it into another propaganda piece on the "evils" of socialism, I'll be extremely disappointed. That was not what the book was.

 

At any rate, they were allowed to grow food in the books -- the hunting thing was a matter of going outside the boundaries of the nation. They didn't want anyone going that way and finding District 13. It wasn't about controlling food sources, though it turned out that way for some. In the books, it's made clear that people couldn't hunt like Catniss anyway.

[Feelin Frisky]

It's undeniable. You really think a culture that raises its children to believe that they all deserve prizes and trophies just for participating in something rather than excelling in it will turn them into ambitious, competitive people?

 

You are making a gross generalization about some narrow trend and frankly that is typical of right-wing hate media where this is liberal-bashing. I don't know where you get your information but it's interpretted with a slant. There has been greater effort to deal with the self esteem of young people by young parents over the last few decades but characterizing all of it the way you do is just typical dismissivness. You don't know what anyone does in their own family and if they tell their kid to tell themselves they are great or special just because they are who they are. That's a caricature. And frankly I don't believe that hits the right cord anyway if self esteem is the issue. What kids need is not artificial congratulations--they simply need the interest of their parents in who they are and what they think rather than raising them to just shut up and obey. But one way or the other you show no expertise or sensitivity, just predicable dismissiveness. My original post deals with the FACT that the design of education still is competition-centric and there is no formal model or commitment to social development in which students come out from underneath authority, learn to understand and negotiate it and then assume it. Education turns out a lousy product of people who think because they have gotten an "A" something that this makes them "better". It's a dysfunctional farce and the degree of need for treatment of motivation in learning is huge--not some little "add-on" pat on the back because "you're special". I'd like to see what happens when kids give a crap about what they learn, can autonomously master arts and sciences and can cooperate with each other on projects of their own design that makes them contributors to economy rather than just a cost center.

[TheBigQuestion]

You are making a gross generalization about some narrow trend and frankly that is typical of right-wing hate media where this is liberal-bashing. I don't know where you get your information but it's interpretted with a slant. There has been greater effort to deal with the self esteem of young people by young parents over the last few decades but characterizing all of it the way you do is just typical dismissivness. You don't know what anyone does in their own family and if they tell their kid to tell themselves they are great or special just because they are who they are. That's a caricature. And frankly I don't believe that hits the right cord anyway if self esteem is the issue. What kids need is not artificial congratulations--they simply need the interest of their parents in who they are and what they think rather than raising them to just shut up and obey. But one way or the other you show no expertise or sensitivity, just predicable dismissiveness. My original post deals with the FACT that the design of education still is competition-centric and there is no formal model or commitment to social development in which students come out from underneath authority, learn to understand and negotiate it and then assume it. Education turns out a lousy product of people who think because they have gotten an "A" something that this makes them "better". It's a dysfunctional farce and the degree of need for treatment of motivation in learning is huge--not some little "add-on" pat on the back because "you're special". I'd like to see what happens when kids give a crap about what they learn, can autonomously master arts and sciences and can cooperate with each other on projects of their own design that makes them contributors to economy rather than just a cost center.

 

Countries with highly competitive educational cultures are absolutely destroying American students in every way possible, particularly East Asian countries that put even more emphasis on punishment, obedience, and rote memorization. Science, technology, engineering. You name it, a whole bunch of countries are doing it better than us. Of course there are plenty of variables at play, but a huge one is that in certain cultures, mediocrity is simply NOT an option so long as one has access to education. That's the difference. It's why the Indian kids I went to high school with have all invariably become computer programmers, physicians, accountants, engineers, or who do research in the sciences. It's why a ridiculously high percentage of 3rd-4th-5th generation white American kids I went to high school with are still waiting tables or getting knocked up by hood rats before marriage despite having a relatively privileged upbringing.

 

Another problem: the biggest idiots I went to high school with, the ones with the most pitiful GPAs, SAT scores, and moral character are the ones that have been most likely to become teachers. That's something that plenty of studies have shown.

[zengirl]

My original post deals with the FACT that the design of education still is competition-centric and there is no formal model or commitment to social development in which students come out from underneath authority, learn to understand and negotiate it and then assume it. Education turns out a lousy product of people who think because they have gotten an "A" something that this makes them "better". It's a dysfunctional farce and the degree of need for treatment of motivation in learning is huge--not some little "add-on" pat on the back because "you're special". I'd like to see what happens when kids give a crap about what they learn, can autonomously master arts and sciences and can cooperate with each other on projects of their own design that makes them contributors to economy rather than just a cost center.

 

This is entirely true. While I am actually a fan of assessments in general, the current assessment-driven method of education is particularly problematic in this way.

 

TBQ is not wrong for saying that countries with what appears to be more academic competition (and more test pressure) are killing us in many ways. They are. What he's missing about those countries, predominantly Asian countries, is that there is a much greater sense of the collective good in their society overall that offsets the competition in schooling. There are also dysfunction in their systems, and basically anyone with any special-needs fares far worse there, though there is much we can take from them to do better.

 

The reason Asian countries do better is not really the schools, though. Everyone in Korea and Japan, for instance, knows their public schools suck (ours are much better and children are often sent here -- if the family has relatives here -- for that reason). That's why they go to umpteen private schools AFTER public school and track kids, usually by ability that is even more clearly linked to socio-economic standing than here, and have private tutoring and so forth. I made a mint in Japan from private tutoring because I'm bilingual and it's legal there. You wouldn't believe how much parents -- middle class parents, not rich ones -- will pay per hour. Education accounts for almost as much of the average family's budget as housing. More than food. Think on that for a moment.

 

It's not the schools that do more over there -- it's the parents. So focusing on, "They're competitive and they do better," is just incorrect. They really don't and they aren't quite as competitive as Americans think. It's all about the parents and society valuing education. You see this with many Asian families (sorry to generalize -- I'm not saying Asian countries are the only achievement-oriented countries) who move here as well. They do better, overcome language gaps, etc, in SO many cases. Why? Their parents push them to do so and get involved and do whatever they can, even with limited resources, to make that happen.

 

Granted, re: math/science, we were just teaching math really, really wrong until a few years ago, but that's changed now. We teach much more like the Asian countries now, who just understood how to teach it better long before we adopted appropriate methods. This is partially because most elementary teachers hate math. Seriously. People who like math and science just do not become elementary teachers. That's not true in those other countries, where teachers make a much more comfortable wage. Also a factor.

 

Another problem: the biggest idiots I went to high school with, the ones with the most pitiful GPAs, SAT scores, and moral character are the ones that have been most likely to become teachers. That's something that plenty of studies have shown.

 

TBQ: This, however, is blatantly untrue. Studies show that teachers are one of the professions most likely to be Gifted or above-average achievers in school, actually. Which makes sense. They aren't as prone to liking math or science at the elementary levels, which is a problem because the secondary teachers who are and do don't get students who are as well-prepared in those areas as they are in literacy, but they are very likely to have gotten high SAT scores and GPAs in their K-12 career. Their grades were likely high in their teaching undergraduates, if they went that way, but Ed programs are notoriously easy. That's getting better, though. As to people who become teachers later (like myself), you are generally looking at a mixed bag. Most of those who actually get hired had quite high GPAs in their college and earlier careers as well. Many people can't become teachers because they test poorly, and we hear about those with the professional tests, but most people I know who failed those tests -- and statistics bear this out as well -- did not become teachers. There are a lot of failed teachers out there, but most of those aren't teaching. They might be if teachers were scarce again. That's when you get the worst of them -- when we don't have nearly enough.

[TheBigQuestion]

TBQ: This, however, is blatantly untrue. Studies show that teachers are one of the professions most likely to be Gifted or above-average achievers in school, actually. Which makes sense. They aren't as prone to liking math or science at the elementary levels, which is a problem because the secondary teachers who are and do don't get students who are as well-prepared in those areas as they are in literacy, but they are very likely to have gotten high SAT scores and GPAs in their K-12 career. Their grades were likely high in their teaching undergraduates, if they went that way, but Ed programs are notoriously easy. That's getting better, though. As to people who become teachers later (like myself), you are generally looking at a mixed bag. Most of those who actually get hired had quite high GPAs in their college and earlier careers as well. Many people can't become teachers because they test poorly, and we hear about those with the professional tests, but most people I know who failed those tests -- and statistics bear this out as well -- did not become teachers. There are a lot of failed teachers out there, but most of those aren't teaching. They might be if teachers were scarce again. That's when you get the worst of them -- when we don't have nearly enough.

 

Then how do you explain this?

 

Why Smart, Ambitious People Rarely Become Teachers

 

This same idea was discussed in some major publications. I think there was a NY Times article. I'll try to find it.

[setsenia]

The tone of this post seems kinda off, even though I don't mean it to be, this isn't about me looking down on ambitious people or anything like that. I'm just trying to understand the whole thing more.

 

A lot of people in the US seem to be all about ambition (much more so than us in the UK it seems).

 

I hear a lot about these people complaining about others with no drive or ambition.

 

Why is this, why is it so wrong for someone to be happy and content with their life, even if what they like to do a lot of the time is play on their Xbox? Why look down on them? What harm are they causing to anyone?

 

Surely that's better than always having to chase something in order to feel happy and content in life?

 

Okay, again, I don't mean for this to sound offensive, it is a genuine question, but is it jealousy, does it make you feel pissed off that some people don't need to put in hard work and constantly chase things in order to feel happy and content? Is that why you have contempt for non ambitious people?

 

What if someone works at an okay job, but in their free time they enjoy playing Xbox, and seeing friends. Even though they're working, is that still not having enough drive, is it still not good enough? What should they do as well as working everyday in order to have drive or be ambitious?

 

When you've achieved what you want in life, will you guys be able to feel happy and content, or will you still feel the need to chase something else?

 

When someone has achieved everything they want in life, is it okay for them to not be ambitious anymore, or is that still a no no?

 

Thanks.

 

Good topic. My dad actually complained about his exW being "too ambitious" because she just wants to work all the time. She went through a lot to get her daughter here from her home country, but because she has so much ambition, she is a workaholic. It's funny, because my dad complained about my mom being polar opposite: not wanting to do anything but stay home and have kids.

 

I don't look down on others who choose to just work minimum wage jobs and barely get by. However, it's difficult if you are in a relationship with someone who shares a different outlook on life. Also, if you live in a high priced area that requires a college degree at most jobs, to make a livable income, your partner with the minimum wage job affects you. In my area, you basically need a dual income household to afford the high prices. You won't get a comfortable living with someone who settles for minimum wage unless you pull in a lot of money.

[zengirl]

Then how do you explain this?

 

Why Smart, Ambitious People Rarely Become Teachers

 

This same idea was discussed in some major publications. I think there was a NY Times article. I'll try to find it.

 

Huh? None of those people had "become" anything yet. I said a lot of stupid people TRY to become teachers (seriously, they do) but most don't stick with it. When you look at the scores of teachers who've been teaching more than 3-5 years, you see a different story.

 

At any rate, I agree it's gotten much worse for 'becoming teachers.' After all, people are trying to strip away the few benefits to being a teacher and ranting against teachers. It's no wonder kids don't want to become them. But it wasn't always this way and most teachers teaching today didn't score poorly. I think looking at something from 2007 is misleading to the teaching force that's already there today.

 

ETA: I do agree that the most 'ambitious' people don't become teachers, generally. The most ambitious people are also usually jerks, IMO. They wouldn't be able to nurture a young mind if they wanted to.

Edited April 4, 2012 by zengirl

[Star Gazer]

The OP doesn't really speak to ambition, IMO.

 

I don't know any people who are truly happy with their lives who sit around at home alone playing video games all day long.

 

I don't hate those people, but I do feel bad for them. They lack the joie de vivre.

[Stilnaught]

The OP doesn't really speak to ambition, IMO.

 

I don't know any people who are truly happy with their lives who sit around at home alone playing video games all day long.

 

I don't hate those people, but I do feel bad for them. They lack the joie de vivre.

 

Or perhaps they should be envied, if they find joie de vivre in thàt. I couldn't live like that, but if someone else can, lucky them.