Boring is better
For individual and societal flourishing, predictability and stability are essential
I want to make an argument today that boring is better for human flourishing at both the societal and individual level. Stability and predictability are boring. They are also the soil from which all good things grow. So, although they are boring, they are the necessary but not sufficient conditions for greatness. With stability and predictability in our lives, we can plan and invest with intention toward worthy goals. With stability and predictability we can live worthy lives, rather than simply surviving. Stability and predictability come from what I have been referring to as generalized competence.
Individuals
I made the case for generalized competence at the individual level previously. “Generalized competence measures how effective you are at keeping your day-to-day existence in control and keeping chaos minimized.” Your home, whether that is you as an individual, or you in your family, should be a platform that provides you a safe, stable, and predictable space where you can rest and recharge. Having this safety helps you become more resilient when faced with the challenges of the world. Having most of your life be boring allows you to focus your efforts on the things that are meaningful and exciting.
A wild and volatile life that is unpredictable leads to plenty of excitement, too. Excitement literally means activity and an expenditure of energy. My colleague Tyler Jamison (interview on FITW podcast) who studies romantic relationships among emerging adults has a category of romantic relationships called High Intensity (see her article here). High intensity relationships are not boring, they are exciting. “High-intensity relationships are a fascinating mix of lots of warmth and support with a hefty dose of negative interactions.” So these couples are lovey for one minute, then throwing dishes at each other the next. While they often stick together for long periods of time, “they also had the highest rate of relationship cycling—breaking up and getting back together.” Tyler is more generous than I am in saying this appears to work for some people. My guess is these people are more likely to get divorced in the long-term. It would be interesting to see data on that. But a “high intensity” relationship is going to drain the emotional resources of the participants. Chaos is both thrilling and consuming. While the relationship may survive, resources are being diverted from other forms of accomplishment.
Looking longer term at marriage and divorce, rather than unmarried 20-somethings, a 2005 study by Zagorsky[i] shows that “divorce reduces a person's wealth by about three-quarters (77 percent) compared to that of a single person, while being married almost doubles comparative wealth (93 percent)” (source). A successful marriage is boring in the sense that it provides a stable platform for raising children and saving for retirement, as well as other meaningful life goals. High intensity living, with uncertainty, characterized ultimately by divorce, is worse than simply being single. At least as a single person, you can create stability for yourself. A good marriage provides predictability and stability so that you can focus on other things, like wealth accumulation. (Are there volatile, high intensity marriages that work out and result in significant wealth? I’m sure, but they are probably the exception. Let’s think about the median.)
One thing I have studied is financial planning and investing, and it is clear that the slow and steady, boring, approach is much more likely to succeed than the high intensity approach of coming and going, and cycling, which is why divorce is so devastating to material wealth. This steady approach also applies to pretty much any skill one is attempting to develop. You can not put in 10,000 hours of effort to become excellent at something if you do not have stability and predictability in other aspects of your life. This is true in careers, and most other worthy pursuits.
I am not saying not to take risks. I wrote about the “tree of risk” model a few months ago. The kind of boring I am talking about cares for the trunk and makes sure nothing can harm it. One can take all the leaf risks one wants, and maybe even a limb risk every now and then, but the trunk must be preserved.
Society
Governments should be boring. In particular, when we are talking about domestic governance, it should be completely predictable and stable. Rules should be written and be difficult to change once put in place. We have been living through a period where government has been far too exciting. The “I’ve got a pen and a phone” approach has resulted in a series of “Day 1” volatility, as the next leader, on Day 1, undoes all the things the prior leader had done.
For a society to grow, it needs stability and predictability. For individuals to pursue strategies to increase their wealth, they need to know what the rules are (in addition to making their lives boring as individuals). It is much harder to be self-reliant in a society where the rules constantly change. Good government should be like an umpire at a baseball game. It makes sure the plate is clean, calls the balls and strikes, and otherwise fades into the background while the action is with the players. What we have been seeing is the umpires changing the rules of the game, mid-game. An out is three strikes today, four strikes tomorrow, two strikes the day after, depending on the whim of the umpire. Or worse, the umpire gives one team four strikes and the other team two. With that kind of uncertainty, it’s hard for players to learn the game, and managers to build a winning team. Society does not grow and flourish under conditions of uncertainty, or at best grows more slowly.
If we want a flourishing society, we have a government that focuses primarily on providing stable rules. In the Worthy Life Model, I talk about the baseline for entry into society as respect for person, property, and promises. Government has a role in ensuring those are respected and preserved. Society unwinds when those three things are not preserved at the individual level (this is why praise of murder of an executive is problematic. Murder is bad, full stop).
Boring is Better
Boring is better at both the individual and societal level if you want to flourish. At the societal level, government should be focused on calling balls and strikes, and making sure everyone follows the rules. The best thing governments can do is create predictable platforms where everyone is equal, and then get out of the way. Individuals should build lives that are mostly boring in the sense that they are predictable and stable, so that the can invest their time and wealth in the things that will make their lives most meaningful.
[i] Zagorsky, J. L. (2005). Marriage and divorce’s impact on wealth. Journal of Sociology, 41(4), 406-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783305058478