Psychological Matters: The Psychology of adversity and success

I think...

I think there's certainly indeed quite a number of people that have gone through adversity and have achieved success in the conventional sense of what we determine success to be.

But I think here is also there's a bit of a over-reporting of that at the perceptual level.

And what I mean by that is the success stories in that regard stand out to us far more.

And they may be exceptions, not the norm.

So you may find that the majority of people that go through some form of adversity end up not doing too well in life and are burdened by those challenges that emanate from their history.

But those stories don't ever make the media.

They're never sensationalized.

They're not people that we aspire to and look up to as role models.

And I think that's where there's a missing piece of the puzzle.

Right.

The norm may actually be us experiencing prolonged challenges from adversity, but those stories go untold or unrecognized.

And the handful of people, of course, if you scale that up more, it will be a whole lot more people.

But relatively speaking, the handful of people that do achieve success, achieve prominence and public spotlight, and we then get to look at those stories, identify them as individuals that...

In some sense, tell a story of determination, perseverance.

And as human beings, we love good stories.

We love a happy ending to a story.

Is it really what that is about, that human beings love a good story? We love the story of the person who overcomes adversities.

It's a great story.

I hear that.

Or is there a more

sinister story? A more sinister and a sinister motivation that people might not be aware of.

I mean, I speak to a lot of successful people in business, in sport, in various different spaces.

And I too am attracted to the story of people who overcome adversity.

But I'm in a way checking myself as well to say, Why? Why is it that we seem to be platforming that story more than the story that seems to be the norm based on your explanation? And what are we actually saying? What is it that you're saying by what you're saying?