|
|
|
|
|
|
by taway_1212
3325 days ago
|
|
|
The problem I see with this approach is that, unless you're a billionaire (maybe a multimillionaire), you're not going to affect the world in any measurable way (barring super-rare exceptions like some writers, politicians, scientists etc.). Granted, you could make your life's purpose to for example improve pot holes situation in your county - in such case, even when being an average nobody you can make the situation better (by constantly harassing the authorities etc.). I don't know how many people can be driven by such small-stake goal though. |
|
|
I think this belief comes from highly individualist cultures where you need to do everything yourself, but it's not the only way of doing things. People tend to just focus on themselves, improving themselves, figuring out how they personally can do something, but there's not much focus on involving other people.
On the contrary, "doers" often close up, stop talking to people, stop making friends, etc., in their effort to "do" the thing, which, if anything, makes their network angry at them. Often this /does/ happen because doers think less of everyone else, creating the very kind of pressure that pushes people away.
How do movements start, even silly ones? We've seen plenty of those. They don't really require someone to do some insane amount of work. But they require people to talk about it and to then bear the brunt of ostracism. Plenty of movements, including many people don't like at all, have grown this way. Simply from some people saying "you know, this makes no sense" and other people agreeing.
A lot of things come down to what regular people talk about every day and connecting to them. Even billionaires and writers, in the end, are trying to change the thinking of regular people.