I suspect the reviewer, and your comment, and probably the author, are wrong to broadly characterize burnout as something that we encounter as "achievement-subjects" but not as "obedience-subjects", or as you put it, because we "strive for achievement." While some may burn out working too hard with the idea they will achieve by doing so, surely many others are burned out by being over-worked at a tough job, with an unsympathetic boss, a "death march" culture promising career advancement that never comes, and what-have-you.

That's an excellent point. I can feel burnout creeping in not because I'm pushing to achieve but just because of the stress required to tread water.

you could reframe the situation and say you are 'treading water' in a position that requires constant 'achievements' whereas if you found an easier job, treading-water wouldn't be hard

There are a lot of unfortunate combinations. Trying to achieve in an obedience-oriented system causes depression, I'm convinced, whereas simple obedience can lead to a fairly stress-free life. In a company I'm familiar with that transitioned quickly from a nimble startup that rewarded high achievers to a bureaucratic beast that saw ICs as chess pieces to be moved around by managers, the early ICs who stayed and kept trying to achieve were afflicted with depression, anxiety, feelings of being gaslighted, and simultaneous contempt for and jealousy of "lazy" newer ICs who understood the new nature of the company and enjoyed comfortable and predictable employment.

Burnout also isn't limited to work, I got it from school.

Just because you pay for the privilege, doesn’t mean it’s not a job.

I've seen people burn out on volunteer work. Lots of institutions are carefully calibrated to extract as much effort from their constituents as the costs allow.

You can get burned out at free public schools. Here in Argentina the best university is free and open to everyone -- and believe me, you can get very stressed because it's also very demanding.

Ding

> And the question that I ask myself after having read the book is: How can we achieve things with no burnout or ego-driven mindset?

I always read him as saying that the valuing of achievement itself comes from the depression/burnout society he observes in his native South Korea. Ie, we only obsess over achievement in the first place because society is so stratified and the stakes are so high if you fail.

I think he overall has a distaste for what he calls the 'achievement subject', and is more aligned with people like Baudrilliard in favouring individuation through developing a contemplative and very singular personal identity.

> How can we achieve things with no burnout or ego-driven mindset?

I ask myself something quite similar but coming from a different place (so to say).

How can I practice detachment (buddhism inspired letting go) while simultaneously accomplishing goals?

I ask myself this because I see a relation between holding on (firmly grasping a goal; the opposite of detachment) and the perseverance of success at doing difficult things.

In my own experience it remains a fact that if I hold on on to something tightly, this is why I suffer (painful); there's a truth behind "no pain no gain". However this is quite close to "them who don't try don't fail"... so they don't suffer BUT do not really accomplish anything either.

Finally, I don't consider the ego to be inherently bad, it's a tool. IMO a problem with it is that one's self is not the only one capable of using one's ego (e.g. we all have been manipulated by someone else).

> How can I practice detachment (buddhism inspired letting go) while simultaneously accomplishing goals?

I think this is somewhat addressed in Hinduism -- the thing you need to realize is that there is your Self, and there is your Role, and those are two entirely separate things. Your Role might be "spouse" or "child" or "software engineer" or "soldier in an army." (not trying to assign any particular morality to a role). Your true Self is entirely independent of that. It is incumbent on you to perform your role to the standards expected, but it's also just a subsystem that exists within your greater Self, it is _not_ equivalent to your self. To find a role, you need to think about unmet needs in the universe. The role you perform is not about you and your self, but it is about something much greater.

Buuuut that doesn't necessarily address motivation - what if we're fine just wanting nothing and sitting around all day just wanting that nothing. The way that is typically addressed in Eastern religion is to actually make that into a virtue - sure, if you want to sit around and self-actualize all day then go ahead and do it, you will be one of the greatest saints ever to live. But that's the catch--it's _way_ harder than it sounds. Generally most of us will get bored at some point, and that boredom will drive us to look at the fuller picture of the universe.

> How can I practice detachment (buddhism inspired letting go) while simultaneously accomplishing goals?

I'd say that:

1) There's a reason for all the insistence on monasticism in Buddhism and many other traditions. Practicing otherwise is doing it on ultra-hard mode. You're unlikely to become A Buddha while having a family and 9-5 job, and that's just how things are. You can't have everything.

2) However—actions are inextricable from successful practice, I think, even in lay-practice. You can't think your way to enlightenment, you have to live it, and not just when you're meditating. And that's the hard part! Not all the reading, the listening, the meditating, the thinking. The doing. As Marcus Aurelius put it (quoting from memory, but quite close): "One can live one's life in a calm flow of happiness, if one learns to think the right way and act the right way" (emphasis mine). The thinking is the easy part. Acting in support of and in harmony with this blissful state, in the world, despite the necessary state of detachment is and always has been the hard part. That's why you can't just Do Buddhism (or anything remotely similar) from books and some part-time meditating.

I think the tension & contradictions between detachment and action is why it's so difficult—impossible, even—to record on paper what a state of complete enlightenment is in any way that fully covers it all on its own. You can't write the differential equation describing it. At best, you can just vaguely gesture in the correct direction.

(note: I am quite bad at the "and act the right way" part myself, so could be entirely wrong about all of this)

My understanding of detachment is incomplete but I think the simplest answer comes down to whether it's in your nature to accomplish those goals without an ego-based drive. Regardless of someone's stage of enlightenment, they still eat/drink/sleep and part of the reason is that your body will gravitate towards those activities if you let it. I think the same goes for more complex work, but it's hard to say. One thing to contemplate would be the difference between detachment and complete spiritual bypass / avoidance

> How can I practice detachment (buddhism inspired letting go) while simultaneously accomplishing goals?

I had the opportunity to ask a monk almost this exact question, I phrased it "why do anything?" instead of "accomplishing goals?"

His answer: Duty. The duties you have to your family, your community, etc.

Speak for yourself. Dont use the word 'we'.

"We" dont strive for achievement. There is a small group with certain specific biological and psychological traits that does.

Their energy and drive gets the whole chimp troupe stampeding in one direction or another.

These biological, personality traits aren't going to be stripped out of the human population any time soon.

So you just have to recognize who you are and who you choose to deal with so you dont get stuck in traps.

Learning takes Time.

I think parent OP used "we" very much correctly, don't try to isolate some people's impact on society.

We all enjoyed when Jeff Bezos delivered our products faster to our homes. We enjoyed when our food is delivered from any restaurant we asked, we enjoyed traveling to other places and generating CO2 along the way.

And do you know why we enjoyed them? Because those people who strive for achievements worked really hard to create these conveniences for us, for some of them there was no personal life, working nights, no family, just career! And they achieved what they wanted. Now they demand from everyone such dedication. Hence some companies (employees to be exact) are creating hidden rules not to promote people with kids, because at some point they might not be as productive as 21 years who just graduated, with lots of energy to burn and cheap to employ. People don't want to have kids because they might distract from their career.

Now our society has problems, pollution, low wages, homelessness, burned out people, because not everyone can perform on their peers level without kids, without personal life and so on

And "we" who don't strive for achievement didn't stop them.

You are twisting words quite a bit. I very much belong to 'the other' tribe of not giving a nanofraction of a fuck about some of these 'achievements' pushed on us, done by people who don't get the concept and urgency of work-life balance. No amazon prime deliveries? In fact, no Amazon deliveries in Switzerland that make any sense? We get by just fine. We don't order food from restaurants, it negates the very reason why to go to restaurant in the first place, the social experience is just not there. I can cook +-comparably well and actually enjoy the process. And so on.

I have myself mapped extremely well thanks to long term involvement with some extreme sports, backpacking around the globe and few times use of psilocybin in the right setting. I know exactly what makes me tick and what is superficial shallow BS, and what you describe is right there.

Again, achievements you describe as some holy grail of mankind mean next to nothing. My wife is a doctor, exactly same story - she can tell you all evening about true respectable achievements, and none of it is about some engineer figuring slightly more effective way for business to deliver.

And don't drag the topic into 'you didn't stop this from happening!' - we are adults, and responsible for our own development and life paths. Don't expect me or anybody else to babysit you and set your life straight to get happy and fulfilled life. If you won't, no guidebook nor internet course, nor aging itself will. Get your own shit together and do it yourself to be more precise.

So you did extreme sports and drugs and figured out life better than everyone else? To the point where you would tell everyone else to "get your own shit together"?

I thought mushrooms dissolved ego, but what you are saying strikes me as filled with ego.

> I thought mushrooms dissolved ego, but what you are saying strikes me as filled with ego

This is the case with everyone I've ever talked to about this. If anything it seems to be an ego boost more than an ego death, though I doubt thats as much the mushrooms as much as it is the person

The lack of self-awareness in this screed is remarkable. Stay woke and better than the 'other' oh enlightened one.

> We enjoyed when our food is delivered from any restaurant we asked, we enjoyed traveling to other places and generating CO2 along the way.

Huh? Delivery drivers are generating CO2. And while I certainly enjoyed the service, I do not enjoy the ridiculous price premium thats being charged along with it

Chances are any form of travel commonly taken generates more CO2 - not just delivery drivers.

It is a seriously weird how common rhetoric to pretend only tech companies entering into a consumer space generate CO2 at all - as seen with Amazon and food delivery companies.

Really the food isn't having a premium attached to it - it is actually being subsidized by investors who expect to make up their losses with increased volume. It would be even more expensive with a sustainable business model.

How the hell are current markups unsustainable? I don't know how many deliveries the average driver does in a day but it can't be more than a few bucks worth of their time. Yet somehow my receipts are marked up 30-50%, in a myriad of different ways: service fees, convenience fees, invisible markups on menu items...

Convenience is not worth that much to me. I really wish it wasn't worth so much to others

> we enjoyed traveling to other places and generating CO2 along the way.

by travel I meant travel by airplane

And some companies promote people with kids above people without them. It cuts both ways.

Hey opx9,

I do apologise if my use of the word "we" caused anger. At the same time I'm happy you took the time to respond—it seems you're passionate about this point so I want to know more.

Why do you say it's a small group? It seems to me it's a pretty large group across the West.

Then, you claim it's biological traits. Does that mean everybody has them?

Finally, what's the alternative? How could one get unstuck? Or maybe a better question would be: what are the traits of those that are not part of the group that has these traits?

The way I see it, is that it's good to have diversity and not push too hard on a norm that doesn't suit everyone, and it's not a solution to attack the norm and swing the pendulum in the other direction, because that will probably do equally much damage, just to a different group of people. Striving for achievement is not bad, but striving for conformity and validation from peer pressure and norms, is bad.

> Then, you claim it's biological traits. Does that mean everybody has them?

I don't understand your logic. If I say someone has the biological trait being very tall, apparently it means NOT everybody has it.

I don't understand your logic. OP was asking a question, which you answered. Questions are merely requests for logical explanations, and therefore, not always logical themselves.

Ah interesting point. I meant it more like: height is a trait, some are tall, others short.

I see what you mean though. I guess that might also be how opx9 meant it.

Cities are like a wall that block people off from viewing the true reality of life... They put huge buildings up that create "bosses" and "corporate culture" and "stores" which all feed being over worked and the ideals of constant desire for more (consumerism). You can only work in a city if you adopt the mindset, which truly is "grind till you die" to your detriment.

People need to burnout in order to fuel a world like ours, it's no different than in the past. Some would say there are simply "too many people on this earth" to escape the constant drive for workplace-related abuse, social inequality, criminal behavior, and injustice when people are tightly packed into cities unfortunately. You realize a different way of living when you escape the city and live in a less populated environment that fosters more of what really matters - Family, Health, Creativity, Communication, Mental Well Being, Nature, and Less of a Competitive/Combative Enviornment.

Once you visit other (more rural and natural) places where people live in communities, where the pace is much more slow, like farms, mountains, beaches etc, most thoughtful people pause and realize that none of the "concrete jungle" accomplishments really matter in terms of life merits. Unfortunately, the poor and working classes rarely if ever have a chance to escape on a vacation, so they are burdened most by burnout... That burnout feeds bad things like suicide, drug abuse, poverty, depression, crime, etc, while the rest of society simply remains ignorant to the root causes of those things. Not to say that those rural and natural places are perfect to live in, but they allow for less distraction from meaningful life goals in many ways over city environments.

Many (wealthier middle class) people occasionally get to take that nature vacation at points in their life, and then later return to the city grind, hoping to recapture the vibe in retirement, but they forget the true motivation as they get behind the city walls again often.

The super-wealthy buy homes in relaxed environments at their whim... And many even work in the city without leaving their super comfortable beach and mountain "vacation" houses. Some would say that's one of the major reasons they often think far beyond the constraints of their (less paid) employees who live in the city and work in the city office... Not because they are "smarter" it's possibly because they are far more often less "mentally distracted" and weighted down by finances, work commutes, and burnout culture of city living.

The API of the City is a real phenomenon. The API provides services that residents cannot get elsewhere and demands certain rituals and ceremonies. For example, the API of the City implicitly prohibits eating food off of the ground for safety and sanitary reasons yet humanity ate food from the ground for 100,000 years. There are many examples like this.

>where the pace is much more slow, like farms

You're thinking of a very idealized farm.

> Family, Health, Creativity, Communication, Mental Well Being, Nature, and Less of a Competitive/Combative Enviornment

Except for Nature, many of us find these things more easily in a city than a rural environment.

A whole lot of other factors come into play in that statement.

Your current age.

Your current socio/economic/financial position in life.

Whether you are single or married.

If you have children or not.

Where exactly you live.

How much you really rely on things related in a city.

My statement was geared towards one's life over it's entire span, rather than being geared towards the current point we're each at in life... When I was younger, I greatly enjoyed living in the city despite all the expense and other issues like crime and close proximity to neighbors. As I grew older, a more quiet (suburban, but close enough to the city) life began to seduce me... Not saying it as concrete fact, but if you really talk to a wide range of people in older age, it's a recurring trend.

Is substance abuse not more common in the more rural communities though? Is it not just a 'grass is greener' effect?

I'm not a data scientist nor working in health care, but my personal opinion leans towards drug abuse being more related/linked to a person's personal experiences, upbringing, and social and economic conditions rather than primarily being linked to where they live. Both rich and poor statistically are represented in terms of drug abuse, the consequences for drug abuse are often more severe for abuse if one is on the less affluent side though (enforcement-wise and health-wise in a historical sense).

If growing up (and currently living) in the rural American south has taught me anything, everyone is high on something. From my mother taking xanax to balance out the overwhelming amount of volunteer work stress she has from church, friends smoking/drinking away the boredom after a long day of oilfield work, or my weed habit for settling down my mind after a long day at the computer.

I think it's like that most everywhere (at the very least, in the US) not just the rural South. I can't remember who sent it, but there was a great tweet I read once that went something like:

"The two biggest surprises of my transition from childhood to adult life were learning that:

1. Everyone is on cocaine. 2. Cheese is fucking expensive."

And sure enough, as I approach 40, practically every adult I know regularly uses at least one—and usually several—mood-, mind-, or perception-altering drugs, legal or otherwise. I'm sure it was true when I was a kid, too, but a combination of my own obliviousness and DARE programs had me thinking otherwise.

[EDIT] actually, I bet it's like that everywhere, period, with few exceptions. There was a travel photo-blogger I used to read a lot, and a common feature of trips to relatively remote and non-touristy/low-development areas was "here's the stall where they sell the one or two obscure-to-westerners drugs that every single adult here takes every single day" For developed areas I expect that only didn't happen because, outside of tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, maybe weed (quite a list already!), plus, you know, drug stores full of prescription drugs, the drugs aren't sold openly like that.

I, too, am approaching 40, and I am still shocked by how many people, how very many high-functioning/high-status/high-contribution-to-society people are fueled by drugs.

Doctors, nurses, lawyers, managers, psychologists, developers…bring on the modafinil, Adderall, cocaine, MDMA, mushrooms, and weed.

(Not that I would ever do such things, no sir, this current design I’m about to ship doesn’t taste like Provigil at all.)

Yeah, even though I've joined that group, I still struggle to process it. "You mean... an extremely high percentage of successful people are 'druggies'?" It's so entirely contrary to the propaganda we received as kids.

Re-contextualizes a lot of cop and justice system stuff. "The defendant had coke in his car". Yeah, so? Decent chance the judge has some in his chambers, too. Doesn't mean shit. "The suspect smelled of weed" yeah, and so did some of the best teachers and professors I ever had, who were, I'm pretty sure, high more often than not.

Another weird thing: my view on alcohol has gotten a lot dimmer over time. As much as I love some of the flavors you can get out of fermentation and distillation, it really is one of the worst of the lot, as far as health damage and how it makes you feel, often stretching into the next day as general lethargy and feeling "off", even if you don't have every much.

I get a lot of weird responses still when I turn down alcohol with "sorry I quit, I only smoke weed now"

Missed out on a lot of tasty craft brews.

I would love to see that stats on that, but it somehow seems like it is more common in the US than in, say, Denmark or the UK even. But then, my perception is primarily from:

1. US TV shows, where it seems like all kinds of drug use is more normalized

2. US 'high-status' culture seeming very odd - this whole thing about people having to always appear positive, high-energy, always busy (partly what I see from US TV shows, partly what my own experience) just doesn't seem sustainable without some sort of drug support.

If that were true, rates of depression and suicide wouldn't be more represented in rural areas.

> How can we achieve things with no burnout or ego-driven mindset

At the risk of sounding pithy, "make it about the journey" set a vague goal of being successful, identify key strategies you think will get you there ("excellence"), and take pleasure in figuring it out, find reward in the incremental stages and don't sweat it when you stumble.

chop wood, carry water.

this is inherently hard in a world of performance reviews, and corporate ladders to climb. especially when it’s heavily implied that you need to advance or move on.

At my last job I gave myself a 3/5 ("acceptable") rating across the board on all self eval performance objectives. In the comments I thought I had made it clear that I did exactly what was required and nothing more or less. I also motioned that I had no interest in advancing my career from where I was at.

I ended up on some sort of remedial training and career progression plan that onlt added hours to my work. Haha

That's unfortunate. Everyone is expected to be a cog but no one is allowed to admit to being comfortable as a cog you always have to be seen as giving 110% and striving for that promotion that logically will never come for most. System is designed to attempt to extract as much as possible from you and if you are not seen as playing along then you can be replaced.

No matter what management says, they never want to hear the truth.

That unfortunately applies to management in non-literal hierarchical sense whether voters, work of high hope no talents who expect success to be just one step away, or telling friends that their new romantic relationship is toxic and self-destructive. Societies have long had hypocrisy problems with honesty globally and frankly probably in prehistory and precivilization as well given how little humanity has fundamentally changed. Rven with our vast accumulation of knowledge over time.

Honesty just isn't selected for in an "evolutionary" system. It comes down to a true but unsatisfying tautology that things which survive better wind up being more common, especially when those things create more of themselves.

Everything's a nail to management, they'll hammer to see 5/5 on their stat sheets even if they don't matter.

> How can we achieve things with no burnout or ego-driven mindset?

First, let go of this need that you have to achieve things. You try and keep up with others, to be better than others, but it's OK to be mediocre.

Counterpoint though, in today's economy, people are forced to achieve and push for higher wages, just to keep a roof over their head. That's another source of stress and worry, and that's down to government and international economic policy to solve.

It was really hard for me to be OK with being mediocre. In anything. And it’s not that I’m competitive with others - primarily I’m hard on myself and looking to beat my own performance.

Realizing it was OK to suck and to do things for fun really opened up some hobbies. But I couldn’t imagine showing up for 40+ hours a week and being mediocre. That would burn me out because I’d be using skills or doing a job outside of my natural ability and seeing mediocre results. I’d keep looking until I found a role that a) paid the bills and b) used enough of my education or talent to be at least good with a moderate level of effort.

The Underachiever's Manifesto: The Guide to Accomplishing Little and Feeling Great by Ray Bennett

> […] but it's OK to be mediocre.

Being worse is pretty ok also!

And if you remove the strive for achievement, people still get depressed because of lack of purpose and meaning.

> * We strive for achievement so much that we tire ourselves to depression

That resonates with me quite a lot, as I fell into this trap too many times, and am currently in the process of getting out once again. Being stressed out and anxious makes me depressed, which makes me unproductive, which then reinforces the stress and anxiety. While you are in it, it is also difficult to take a step back and reflect on how this isn't a very smart way of doing things.

Surprisingly, I find answers to many of these questions in Fight Club.

"Stop trying to control everything, and just let go."

I'd note that this was advice given by the antagonist to the protagonist, so that the protagonist would _willingly_ give up his existence to the antagonist.

Hum... At some point he did, and let go of the antagonist too.

As far as the movie makes some sense, it's very strongly into finding balance.