Mid life crisis

[El Guepardo]

Warning..the dark meanderings of life ahead, don't read if you want to remain positive.

Is this when you start worrying about the fragility of life? Realise how quickly life is passing you by & that you're just losing precious moments of life all the time?

Until now, it was almost as if I was living with my eyes half closed. All of a sudden, it's freaking me out..seriously..I'm aware of everyone just getting older & that every day is one more day until the end for everyone. It's horrible.

I'm in my mid 30s, look back & realise that being 20 doesn't seem 5 minutes ago. Same distance of time again & I'll be 50! Then any youth that I cling on to will be well & truly gone.

I haven't achieved anything yet. I'm single, my job is ok as far as the people but I could be doing so much better. It's scary! And then I know that I could lose my parents, who are 30 years older, at any time & really couldn't be all that surprised if I did & yet, I can't think to lose them. Same with seeing them get noticeably older & not be the same that they once were. Sure, they're not going downhill rapidly...yet, but they're their age. And yet, I remember how they would be when I was a kid & how they would act.

I feel definitely like I've lived for too long with my eyes closed. Just treating every day as another day, putting things off & disappearing down this rabbit hole whilst not really appreciating any of it.

I know I have to start living more in the moment. I have to make the most of my time now. I have to strive to make the most if time with family & to succeed in my career & with finding the right woman. In some ways, I appreciate this wake up call. I just wish that it had happened when u was younger, so that I could sit up & take action then, but heh, that time is now.

Has anyone else gone through a time like this? Is it a mid life crisis?

And, I know that a lot of people experience far worse through their lives & so I'm happy for all the positive experiences and the fortune that I have experienced to now. Perhaps my life hasn't been perfect, but there have been some good times. Now I know that it's time to really live in the moment, to absorb every second & make good with it. No point being sad, or stressed, just push on & see what I can do with whatever time that I have left.

 

[AuroRaman]

It's my birthday today. Thanks.....

 

[scaramanga]

I believe the generally accepted solution is to buy a sports car and start dating a 20 year old.

 

[braineclipse]

You seem to have a lot of stuff sorted out already El G. I wouldn't quite call it a mid-life crisis, more of a realization that a lot of people have at various points in their lives.

I've definitely had similar thoughts... I would say don't worry about the time that has come and gone, what you've done with your life in the past is what seemed like the best idea at the time and there's not much point worrying about what could have been. For myself at least I would rather see that as a learning experience that brought me to where I am than a long period of missed opportunities.

You also have a lot of time left. Youth gets a bit overrated these days anyway, a lot of good things to say about proper adulthood.

What are you thinking about work? It's a bit boring in a self-realization type context, but when one ends up spending half of the waking hours available either at work or going to and from work it's definitely a big decision worth making in a reflective and conscious manner. For most people I truly believe there are a lot of good options available.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

All of your feelings of anxiety about not having 'that job' that you dreamed of or a woman by your side by the age of 35 are brought about by an inbuilt mechanism in humans to care about what everyone else thinks.

Read this, it's all a bit wishy washy but is quite funny in places and actually very true:http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/06/taming-mammoth-let-peoples-opinions-run-life.html

In short, f**K everyone else.

 

[braineclipse]

All of your feelings of anxiety about not having 'that job' that you dreamed of or a woman by your side by the age of 35 are brought about by an inbuilt mechanism in humans to care about what everyone else thinks.

Read this, it's all a bit wishy washy but is quite funny in places and actually very true:http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/06/taming-mammoth-let-peoples-opinions-run-life.html

In short, f**K everyone else.

Who is Tim Urban and why should I take him seriously? To me he doesn't seem to understand evolution or psychology yet offers up evolutionary psychology as the theoretical background for his point of view without listing even a single source for any of his claims...

Seems to have all the hallmarks of a shoddy self help book, apart from the "book" part.

Also it doesn't seem fair to me to describe what El G is writing as anxiety in the way you do.

 

[scaramanga]

All of your feelings of anxiety about not having 'that job' that you dreamed of or a woman by your side by the age of 35 are brought about by an inbuilt mechanism in humans to care about what everyone else thinks.

Read this, it's all a bit wishy washy but is quite funny in places and actually very true:http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/06/taming-mammoth-let-peoples-opinions-run-life.html

In short, f**K everyone else.

Who is Tim Urban and why should I take him seriously? To me he doesn't seem to understand evolution or psychology yet offers up evolutionary psychology as the theoretical background for his point of view without listing even a single source for any of his claims...

Seems to have all the hallmarks of a shoddy self help book, apart from the "book" part.

Also it doesn't seem fair to me to describe what El G is writing as anxiety in the way you do.

Agree about the author's lack of pertinent knowledge and/or skills here. That said, f*ck everyone else is a very good life motto - you could do a lot worse.

I still recommend you buy a sports car and start dating a 20 year old. Both are fun to ride for a bit but you'll also get bored of both pretty quickly - it's a good way to reaffirm that being a grown up is better than being a dumb kid.

 

[braineclipse]

Agree about the author's lack of pertinent knowledge and/or skills here. That said, f*ck everyone else is a very good life motto - you could do a lot worse.

I still recommend you buy a sports car and start dating a 20 year old. Both are fun to ride for a bit but you'll also get bored of both pretty quickly - it's a good way to reaffirm that being a grown up is better than being a dumb kid.

If I wanted a long-winded self absorbed text that ultimately added up to "fudge everyone else" I would read Ayn Rand, at least she wrote fairly well.

Disagree on the life motto thing though. In part because of what the article posted above touched on, but seemingly failed to make explicit... We are social [citation needed] animals [citation needed].

 

[parklane1]

You worry to much, I am a lot older then you and I have a terrific life. I have always lived to the mantra that" today is the first day of the rest of my life" and I have never give a brick about what happens tomorrow.

 

[scaramanga]

If I wanted a long-winded self absorbed text that ultimately added up to "fudge everyone else" I would read Ayn Rand, at least she wrote fairly well.

Disagree on the life motto thing though. In part because of what the article posted above touched on, but seemingly failed to make explicit... We are social [citation needed] animals [citation needed].

Now we're getting interesting! Is there any requirement on you (I should probably use 'one' - I'm not talking about you directly) to be a social animal in order for 'us' to be social animals? I suspect that you (or I, or anyone else) would get by just fine with a f*ck everyone else attitude.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

Who is Tim Urban and why should I take him seriously? To me he doesn't seem to understand evolution or psychology yet offers up evolutionary psychology as the theoretical background for his point of view without listing even a single source for any of his claims...

Seems to have all the hallmarks of a shoddy self help book, apart from the "book" part.

Also it doesn't seem fair to me to describe what El G is writing as anxiety in the way you do.

No idea who he is, and it's up to you whether you want to take him seriously or not. I didn't post it as a peice of scientific literature that could be pulled apart. I posted it as a bit of light-hearted reading the initial poster that might make him think 'Ah, f**K it, being 35 and single isn't anything to worry about in the grans scheme of things,and my job isn't great, but could be worse'.

He should still go out, buy a sportscar and find some hot 20 yer old to bang.

And yes, anxiety was probably a bit too strong a term. Discomfort or something might have bee better.

 

[braineclipse]

Now we're getting interesting! Is there any requirement on you (I should probably use 'one' - I'm not talking about you directly) to be a social animal in order for 'us' to be social animals? I suspect that you (or I, or anyone else) would get by just fine with a f*ck everyone else attitude.

To be clear I was more stating what I consider to be a fact, not making a value judgement on how people should behave. If you look at animals (human and non-human) wanting to describe various species into social and non-social animals it's pretty clear that we fall into the social animals category imo.

As (just about) always there will be a bell curve and statistical outliers. I don't think there's a requirement for all people to be social animals for human beings in general to be described as social animals. A comparison might be drawn to describing human beings as sexual animals (which we also quite obviously observably are imo), yet some people are asexual. (I think you get what I'm saying here Scara). So no on the requirement...

On if we as individuals would be fine or not with a "fudge everyone else attitude"... I'm assuming you're not talking about living as a hermit and being completely asocial. And I'm also assuming you're not talking about being a sociopath or psychopath. You're talking about a fairly selfish "fudge everyone I don't care about" attitude where one's own family and friends are placed in an in group and the "fudge everyone else" refers to the out group? I imagine one can be "just fine" as a part of any of those 3 categories (hermit, sociopath, selfish) as it were.

However at the same time I do think the fact that we are social animals can be a real source of happiness, well being and human flourishing. There are many ways of dealing with the social interactions we're talking about here. "fudge everyone" would be one. The rather anxiety filled (perhaps even pathological anxiety) presented as the starting point in the above article posted by Millsy is another. Here I draw a comparison to the "moral landscape" argument made by Sam Harris, there are many potentially successful approaches, many peaks. And probably at least as many valleys and then areas in between.

There will certainly be individual differences in what approach is right for different people for the social aspect of being human. What I'm saying is that for myself, and for a lot of other people, the "fudge everyone" approach doesn't seem like a peak. And a lot of people get a lot of happiness and purpose out of rather different approaches. I can't successfully argue that the "fudge everyone" approach isn't right for you or anyone else in particular though. And of course one can be "just fine" with that approach, though I think there are potential sources of happiness one is missing out on with that approach. Though the same can probably be said for other approaches.

(Apologies to El G for taking his very honest and good thread somewhat O/T. I will definitely be interested in discussing the aspects of this he brought up in his first post as well as what's come up later, but I agree with Scara that this is rather interesting).

 

[braineclipse]

No idea who he is, and it's up to you whether you want to take him seriously or not. I didn't post it as a peice of scientific literature that could be pulled apart. I posted it as a bit of light-hearted reading the initial poster that might make him think 'Ah, f**K it, being 35 and single isn't anything to worry about in the grans scheme of things,and my job isn't great, but could be worse'.

He should still go out, buy a sportscar and find some hot 20 yer old to bang.

And yes, anxiety was probably a bit too strong a term. Discomfort or something might have bee better.

He is making claims on issues that can be tested scientifically though. And he's making an argument based on an interpretation of a scientific theory, an interpretation that seems way off. If questioning that pulls his piece apart I'm to continue to take him about as seriously as the average self-help author (which may be giving him too much credit, but I'm feeling generous today).

I could go on about why I think the self-help industry is not a good solution for someone in El G's situation, but I'll try to limit my tldr posts in this thread to one per hour...

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

He is making claims on issues that can be tested scientifically though. And he's making an argument based on an interpretation of a scientific theory, an interpretation that seems way off. If questioning that pulls his piece apart I'm to continue to take him about as seriously as the average self-help author (which may be giving him too much credit, but I'm feeling generous today).

I could go on about why I think the self-help industry is not a good solution for someone in El G's situation, but I'll try to limit my tldr posts in this thread to one per hour...

I'm honestly not that interested, it was just a throw away article that I thought might help the OP. Although in the interests of a discussion (and admittedly to further my own knowledge a litte), what is it about his interpretation that you think is way off? And what is your interpretation of it?

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

A very interesting thread. What you're only in your 30's? Wait until you're your 50's like me. I found the physical aspect most unsettling, as it hit me like a ton of bricks. One minute I was playing football with 15 and 16 year olds and dominating and then it was gone... just like that. I can even remember the moment. One day I couldn't get more than 6 inches off the ground to contest in aerial duels. Nowadays, I can't even get to the contest... very sad. You start to make funny noises getting out of a chair and hair starts sprouting from your ears...weird.

The biggest problem, is that although my body has deteriorated, I still have the mindset of an 18 year old. I disagree with the points made about wanting a younger woman because of a crisis. I don't want a woman of my age, because 90% of them just don't do it for me physically. Must be my mindset!

Was talking about this with a friend, just this morning and we both thought that the mid life crisis thing applies more to woman these days. Men are too stressed by all the pressures of life to have time to even think about it. Woman are checking out, walking away from their husbands and children in much greater numbers, initiating divorce and such at around the age of 50. It's no longer the bloke with a paunch and a toupee. They run the line, I need to find myself, I'm not fulfilled and of course that old stand by, you don't make me happy anymore.

I guess there is more pressure on women in some ways because looks are so much more important to them and they see them fading away and feel as if it's all slipping away. Men on the other hand age much better as a rule. A women who was the fittest bird I knew at school moved 50 yards down from the road from me, but she had really gone in the looks department, as have many other women I knew from my younger days. In contrast, my male friends have not changed much in my eyes.

I guess it's all about mental re-adjustment. I don't bother with women my own age and cannot be bothered chasing younger ones either. I now try to achieve happiness within myself and do not go trying to find it from somebody else. By not defining myself by way of relationships, the ageing thing doesn't loom as large anymore.

 

[braineclipse]

I'm honestly not that interested, it was just a throw away article that I thought might help the OP. Although in the interests of a discussion (and admittedly to further my own knowledge a litte), what is it about his interpretation that you think is way off? And what is your interpretation of it?

You presented it as something that was "actually very true" though...

I'm not an expert on evolution by any means, so take my opinion too with a pinch of salt, but a couple of the points that made me go "wait, what, does this guy know anything about this topic at all?" This based on my understanding. I'm sure I can be corrected by someone with actual high level knowledge in the area.

- First of all he fails to include a throat clearing about theories of evolutionary psychology. They're pretty much not testable at all, they're speculative, and can be fitted to just about any argument if one is willing to pick and choose what to focus on.

- "Evolution does everything for a reason" he claims. Sure, evolution happens because of natural (or other) selection influencing reproduction. But he seem to assume a evolutionary explanation even for complex social behaviour in large groups of people, and that this happened "for a reason". This could just as well be a result of the environment (culture) we grow up in. We know there are significant differences in behaviour between cultures and different situations people grow up in. For his evolutionary explantion to be true it would have to be true cross-culturally, but the article is pretty much entirely focused on modern western culture. In other words, although everything evolution does happens for a reason, he doesn't actually explain why what he's claiming to be true was caused by evolution - or rather, what proportion of it is influenced by evolution.

- The 50 000 BC number. We actually have very little evidence of human evolution at this point in time. Research seems to indicate that equivalents to modern humans existed from about 100-250 thousands years ago. Evolutionary biology looking at behaviour/psychology should (imo) focus on what determined the group dynamics of those prehistory humans, not what influences those group dynamics had on human evolution. There's a very real chance that if we could transport a person from 70 thousand years ago to today they would be indistinguishable from modern man. We share aspects of social evolution with other animals, chances are the billion or so of years preceding evolution is more important to how we turned out than what happened during prehistoric human time.

- We actually know relatively little about how prehistoric tribes functioned. The author of the article makes some huge assumptions, without supporting them at all. Would it actually be disastrous to be kicked out of a tribe? Or was changing tribes a relatively commonplace occurrence like it is in many modern day animal species that travel primarily in flocks? Is it rational to expect tribes of perhaps 30-50 people (or even fewer) to be stable over generations without inbreeding being the end of them? Or is it more rational to actually expect considerable movement of people between tribes? His statement about how embarrassing yourself by pursuing a girls is just complete and utter fabrication, he has no way of knowing, and to the extent it did happen the chances that this managed to influence behaviour through evolution seems like a huge stretch. It's just babble, it has nothing to do with scientific understanding of evolutionary psychology and it's all just seems like guesswork and fabrication to support his viewpoint and anecdote.

- Being socially acceptable is everything he claims. But human beings steal, cheat, lie, fight, *struggle cuddle* and kill. How come? As far as I know we don't know much about the actual leaders of the tribes he describes. We know virtually nothing about how they valued fitting in or how leaders were even decided. Perhaps it was just whoever was the biggest and strongest at the time, and what constituted behaviour "fitting in" depended entirely on who the leader was at any given time.

- We actually have no idea if procreation was decided on a man pursuing a women (and fearing rejection) as he presents, the idea seems to me entirely modern.

Essentially, in my opinion, the entire evolutionary basis for his argument is made up pseudo scientific babble. It's also entirely unnecessary for the parts of the article where he does have a point, and such things would be much better described without it.

 

[Lemonade Money]

A very interesting thread. What you're only in your 30's? Wait until you're your 50's like me. I found the physical aspect most unsettling, as it hit me like a ton of bricks. One minute I was playing football with 15 and 16 year olds and dominating and then it was gone... just like that. I can even remember the moment. One day I couldn't get more than 6 inches off the ground to contest in aerial duels. Nowadays, I can't even get to the contest... very sad. You start to make funny noises getting out of a chair and hair starts sprouting from your ears...weird.

The biggest problem, is that although my body has deteriorated, I still have the mindset of an 18 year old. I disagree with the points made about wanting a younger woman because of a crisis. I don't want a woman of my age, because 90% of them just don't do it for me physically. Must be my mindset!

Was talking about this with a friend, just this morning and we both thought that the mid life crisis thing applies more to woman these days. Men are too stressed by all the pressures of life to have time to even think about it. Woman are checking out, walking away from their husbands and children in much greater numbers, initiating divorce and such at around the age of 50. It's no longer the bloke with a paunch and a toupee. They run the line, I need to find myself, I'm not fulfilled and of course that old stand by, you don't make me happy anymore.

I guess there is more pressure on women in some ways because looks are so much more important to them and they see them fading away and feel as if it's all slipping away. Men on the other hand age much better as a rule. A women who was the fittest bird I knew at school moved 50 yards down from the road from me, but she had really gone in the looks department, as have many other women I knew from my younger days. In contrast, my male friends have not changed much in my eyes.

I guess it's all about mental re-adjustment. I don't bother with women my own age and cannot be bothered chasing younger ones either. I now try to achieve happiness within myself and do not go trying to find it from somebody else. By not defining myself by way of relationships, the ageing thing doesn't loom as large anymore.

In summary for the OP, it only gets worse, but at least your not a bird!

 

[parklane1]

Wow, that is the problem with some, they are so worried about getting old that they start looking for reasons ( the meaning of life and all that gonads), life is what you make it and its full of ups and downs but do not take it seriously just get out there and have fun.



Never tell your problems to anyone...20% don't care and the other 80% are glad you have them


Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...it's learning to dance in the rain.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Get some hobbies and work to live.

Or get a job you love and live to work.

Good luck son.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

You presented it as something that was "actually very true" though...

I'm not an expert on evolution by any means, so take my opinion too with a pinch of salt, but a couple of the points that made me go "wait, what, does this guy know anything about this topic at all?" This based on my understanding. I'm sure I can be corrected by someone with actual high level knowledge in the area.

- First of all he fails to include a throat clearing about theories of evolutionary psychology. They're pretty much not testable at all, they're speculative, and can be fitted to just about any argument if one is willing to pick and choose what to focus on.

- "Evolution does everything for a reason" he claims. Sure, evolution happens because of natural (or other) selection influencing reproduction. But he seem to assume a evolutionary explanation even for complex social behaviour in large groups of people, and that this happened "for a reason". This could just as well be a result of the environment (culture) we grow up in. We know there are significant differences in behaviour between cultures and different situations people grow up in. For his evolutionary explantion to be true it would have to be true cross-culturally, but the article is pretty much entirely focused on modern western culture. In other words, although everything evolution does happens for a reason, he doesn't actually explain why what he's claiming to be true was caused by evolution - or rather, what proportion of it is influenced by evolution.

- The 50 000 BC number. We actually have very little evidence of human evolution at this point in time. Research seems to indicate that equivalents to modern humans existed from about 100-250 thousands years ago. Evolutionary biology looking at behaviour/psychology should (imo) focus on what determined the group dynamics of those prehistory humans, not what influences those group dynamics had on human evolution. There's a very real chance that if we could transport a person from 70 thousand years ago to today they would be indistinguishable from modern man. We share aspects of social evolution with other animals, chances are the billion or so of years preceding evolution is more important to how we turned out than what happened during prehistoric human time.

- We actually know relatively little about how prehistoric tribes functioned. The author of the article makes some huge assumptions, without supporting them at all. Would it actually be disastrous to be kicked out of a tribe? Or was changing tribes a relatively commonplace occurrence like it is in many modern day animal species that travel primarily in flocks? Is it rational to expect tribes of perhaps 30-50 people (or even fewer) to be stable over generations without inbreeding being the end of them? Or is it more rational to actually expect considerable movement of people between tribes? His statement about how embarrassing yourself by pursuing a girls is just complete and utter fabrication, he has no way of knowing, and to the extent it did happen the chances that this managed to influence behaviour through evolution seems like a huge stretch. It's just babble, it has nothing to do with scientific understanding of evolutionary psychology and it's all just seems like guesswork and fabrication to support his viewpoint and anecdote.

- Being socially acceptable is everything he claims. But human beings steal, cheat, lie, fight, *struggle cuddle* and kill. How come? As far as I know we don't know much about the actual leaders of the tribes he describes. We know virtually nothing about how they valued fitting in or how leaders were even decided. Perhaps it was just whoever was the biggest and strongest at the time, and what constituted behaviour "fitting in" depended entirely on who the leader was at any given time.

- We actually have no idea if procreation was decided on a man pursuing a women (and fearing rejection) as he presents, the idea seems to me entirely modern.

Essentially, in my opinion, the entire evolutionary basis for his argument is made up pseudo scientific babble. It's also entirely unnecessary for the parts of the article where he does have a point, and such things would be much better described without it.

Yeh, so the parts I was referring to being very true were the silly little diagrams and examples of the girl trying on outfits, or the bloke talking to the girl, the artistic expression part rung true with me as someone who plays on stage fairly regularly.

The other sciency stuff, no idea if it's true or not.