[synnik]

"People with a passion with nothing are the ones who are content to lead an ordinary life. They are the ones who can grow up, go to school, get married, get a good job, buy a house in the suburbs, raise children and grandchildren and die utterly content with their lives."

This isn't quite fair. This describes people who are passionate about their family, their wives, their children. Maybe passionate about home repair. Maybe about their local community. Or even spots. And that doesn't even cover the fact that most ordinary suburban folk have hobbies about which they are passionate.

The article overall just seems to be placing labels on people, but leaving me with a question to the author of, "So What?"

[Tawheed]

The author seems to discount the person that is passionate about legacy -- the parent that has "settled" into raising a solid family and a steady job so that her kids can have the luxury of becoming a "passionate."

[sumeeta]

Right, and labeling them is not much different from calling them dumb.

I think something's wrong with us "passionates." Why aren't we seeing any value in these everyday "content" people?

[synnik]

I am one of those everyday "content" people. I used to be "passionate"... doing startup work, personal projects, climbing mountains (literally), etc.

You know what? I'm happier now. I have more burdens, I'm in worse health, I have little personal time.

Yet somehow... still happier. Go figure.

[shalmanese]

There does exist people who are passionate about family but I argue this is a seperate category from people who merely have a family. That you think of it this way is a reflection of you understandif the world through the lens of someone with passion. The "so what" of this piece is precisely to point out these misunderstandings.