Doing things for the wrong reasons for the right reasons

[WarrenG]

One goal I have is to be more self-validated, like Howard Roark in the Fountainhead. Other peoples' status and opinions have zero emotional influence on him. He's an architect, and the whole world says his designs are crappy but he doesn't care because those are the buildings he wants to make -- the process of building that way is his motivation, not the rewards, accolades and attention he'll get as a result.

I think that's cool. He wouldn't be intimidated or feel bad if another architect came along who was superior to him. It just wouldn't affect him.

But sometimes giving in to external validation can be a motivator. For instance, say you're the muscular dude in your social group, and no one really works out much apart from you. You're the strongest and look the best naked, and that's clear to all. Then a new dude joins the group who is also muscular. Now you hit the gym harder because you want to keep that status.

On one hand, this is weak behaviour because others' opinions shouldn't matter to you. You want to look that way and be that strong for yourself, because YOU think it's worthwhile, not to get the approval of other people.

But on the other hand, you have certain physical goals, and you could use that inner desire for acceptance and validation (or fear of losing it) to spur you on towards those goals.

So you're doing it for the wrong reasons, but also for the right reasons.

Do you think it is OK to use such drives as motivation? I mean, it's a more productive response than sabotaging the other person or thing that might cause the loss of validation.

But then again, is the desire for validation something that something you should never use as motivation, and if you can't motivate yourself without it you should simply go the other way and use the presence of the other muscly dude to strengthen your self-validation?

Have you ever been in a situation like this? What did you do?

(if you're wondering, the muscly dude example is a real one from many many years ago, but the first one that came to mind).

[The Cloud]

The thing that sets Howard Roark apart as a character isn't the things that he achieves, it's that he doesn't have to achieve them. If someone fights him, he doesn't have to win, and in fact he can't because he never competes with anyone. Remember how he couldn't participate in the Cosmo-Slotnick competition? It wasn't because he didn't need the money or couldn't design a skyscraper. It's because the thing that pushes him forward was ignorant of the concept of competition. It was both foreign and unnecessary, perhaps even toxic, so it was rejected out of hand.

[pianoperformer]

Or, you could figure out why you require external validation, acceptance, and recognition to validate your self-worth. Once you really love yourself for who you are, then no one else can affect you.

[Jross22]

Let's put it this way.

Sarah is lost in the forest.

Jack and John are searching for her, working independently. They are rivals so the hope that they find Sarah first helps them focus and work their hardest. This could help Sarah, because each one has a personal reason to do his best work. It could hurt her if Jack or John loses sight of the important thing- bringing Sarah home safe-- and try to cheat on the competition. So long as the men keep their perspective and channel their energies, Sarah will have an improved chance. That has to be good.

So the thing is, when dealing with complex motives, one must be aware of which motives are truly valuable and which are just games.

If you want something- like winning a competition- it falls on you to find ways to manifest that which are in line with the highest good, of whoever you care about. (Light/Darkworker) Every one of our desires can be fulfilled in accordance with "the highest good of all"/ "true will." And every one of them can be pursued in a pyrrhic, toxic, "cancerous" way. You decide.

[faraway]

There is a saying: One has to admit that some of the mistakes one made were gone absolutely rightly.

What is wrong and what is right? I think it is very circumstantial.

There is such instrument as BAT - best alternative to. I think it is better to judge things from its point of view. What was the best alternative to competing with this dude? To hate and harm him? No. Ignore him? I doubt that you could do it then. It means that you used the best alternative in that situation, transferred your negative irritation with that dude into positive action and results.

I think you did the right thing for the right reason in the concrete сircumstances.