Change is generally welcomed or at leased regarded as inevitable. But is this really so? just an example, why is a year in which company earned the same as the before regarded as unsuccessful? While searching for answers we came across this model by blogger Jessie Hagy.
The similarities between the way things are (A) and the way things will be (B) are often greater than expected (C). In other words even following big changes, much stays the same.
But the model can also read differently: Professor Philipp Zimbardo believes there are three categories of people who can be defined according to which 'time zone' they live in:
Focused on the past: 'Past Negative' those who define themselves according to their misfortunes and missed opportunities in the past and 'Past Positives' (those who are nostalgic and romanticise the past).
Focused on the present: 'Headonist's' (those searching for happiness) and 'non-planners' those who believe in fate, for whom the future cannot be planned. e.g because of religion or class affiliation).
Focused on the future: 'Planners' (Life is what you make it) and 'After-lifers' ('real' life begins only after the body has died)
In the Western world the vast majority of people are focused either on the 'past' or the 'future'.
So is C always getting smaller because we are too preoccupied with A or B?
'If I ain't broke, don't fix it'
No comments:
Post a Comment