top of page
I admire your self-discipline to eat vegan..png

Premise 5:

Put process ahead of results

Dwight: Let's dive into discussing Premise 5 of the New Ethics of Integrity. Remember, Aiko, your role is to ensure that I've established this premise thoroughly and beyond any reasonable doubt, or not. Okay?

Aiko: Absolutely, Dwight. I'm ready to challenge your reasoning or acknowledge its strength. Go ahead and lay out Premise 5 so we can see if it's as solid as you think.

Dwight: Premise 5 claims that prioritizing a sustainable, attractive, and enjoyable process or journey over achieving specific results is more likely to lead to a happier life, now and in the future, than when focusing on results. It builds on Premise 2, which already established that happiness is the ultimate purpose behind all our choices.

First, I just want to note that we are building upon Premises 1-4, which have already been established:

Premise 1: Your #1 job is to take care of yourself.

Premise 2: Happiness is your ultimate purpose.

Premise 3: Be 100% responsible to have the most power.

Premise 4: Your #1 job is to decide for yourself.

Aiko: Thanks for grounding our discussion in these foundational premises, Dwight. Premise 5 seems to follow logically, as prioritizing an enjoyable, sustainable process would naturally support taking care of oneself, personal happiness, responsibility, and self-determined decision-making.

Dwight: Thank you for suggesting that, Aiko. But let's not jump the gun. Premise 5 must be established in its own right.

Aiko: You’re right, Dwight. Each premise deserves its own rigorous validation. Let's continue to dissect Premise 5 independently, without assuming its validity based on the previous ones.

The idea that focusing on the process can lead to greater happiness certainly has some merit, especially considering how many people find fulfillment in experiences rather than outcomes. But how do you address the concern that without tangible results, a sense of achievement or purpose might diminish, possibly undermining long-term happiness?

Dwight: I agree that achieving some results is essential for long-term happiness. I will demonstrate how prioritizing process can actually make this more likely. By "prioritizing process," I mean designing and implementing sustainable, attractive, and enjoyable processes that, as they unfold, are likely to lead to the desired results.

Aiko: That clarification helps. So, you're suggesting that by focusing on crafting processes that are enjoyable and sustainable in themselves, we're essentially setting the stage for success to occur as a byproduct. But how do you ensure that this approach doesn't lead to complacency, where the emphasis on enjoyment might overshadow the effort required to achieve meaningful results?

Dwight: Complacency is a sense of self-satisfaction that often blinds us to real dangers or shortcomings. I believe that if we’re enjoying the process, we’re more likely to remain aware of actual risks or weaknesses. When we dislike the process, we tend to fixate on the difficulty, which might lead us to rush and ignore important details.

 

You mention that “emphasis on enjoyment might overshadow the effort needed for meaningful results,” but I argue that effort, here, implies we’re not enjoying the process. If that’s the case, we’re sacrificing this part of life’s happiness in favor of future happiness from the results—a flawed approach. As the proverb says, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” I’d adapt it here to say, “A bird in the hand helps us reach the two in the bush,” since enjoying the process enables us to perform better and sustain persistence toward the goal.

Aiko: I see your point that enjoyment can bring greater awareness and persistence. However, what about complex goals that require sustained sacrifice? Could the emphasis on enjoyment create unrealistic expectations, making people resistant to necessary challenges that might yield long-term rewards?

Dwight: Examples abound where people sacrificed the process for the sake of achieving notable results. The Great Wall of China—an incredible achievement—came at the cost of between 400,000 and 1,000,000 Chinese lives. I also know a client who became a multi-millionaire but, in doing so, sacrificed his health and family.

Aiko: Those are stark examples, Dwight, and they underscore how prioritizing outcomes over the process can lead to personal and collective suffering. However, some might argue that these sacrifices were necessary or inevitable for such monumental achievements. How would you respond to the claim that, in some cases, the demands of “greatness” may inherently require this level of personal or societal cost?

Dwight: Where does this “demand for greatness” come from? Who imposes it, and for what purpose—other than to tell a dramatic story about how difficult the journey was?

Aiko: That’s a powerful question, Dwight. The notion of “greatness” is often built around a narrative of sacrifice and struggle, as though hardship alone validates achievement. Yet, if these demands are largely self-imposed or culturally glorified, they may not be inherently necessary to the accomplishment itself. How, then, would you propose shifting perspectives so that people no longer equate “greatness” with struggle?

Dwight: We’ve glorified the concept of “hardness,” as though if something wasn’t difficult, it lacks meaning or worth. My grandmother would say, “A happy people has no history.” Without “hardness” and “struggle,” we’d lose the stories that captivate us. When clients claim something is “hard,” I challenge them to show me how it’s hard or why it needs to be. They always discover that any “hardness” is either imagined or self-imposed.

Aiko: That’s insightful, Dwight. If “hardness” is often self-constructed, then maybe the real obstacle lies in people’s belief systems rather than the task itself. But given how deeply embedded these narratives are, how do you help clients recognize that dropping unnecessary struggle won’t diminish the value of their achievements?

Dwight: That’s an important question, but it’s off-topic for our goal of thoroughly establishing (or not) Premise 5.

Aiko: Fair point. Let’s stay focused, then. With Premise 5 suggesting that a well-designed, enjoyable process leads to happiness and long-term success, how do you account for situations where necessary discipline or routine, though unenjoyable, might contribute more directly to the desired result?

Dwight: Results can be achieved through unenjoyable processes. However, your argument assumes that a “desired result” inherently contributes to our happiness, and it implies that we often cannot find enjoyable processes to achieve results that lead to happiness. Can you give a specific example of an unenjoyable process that someone would need to endure to achieve a genuinely desirable result?

Aiko: Good question. One example might be the intense discipline of physical rehabilitation after a major injury—often a painful, grueling process that people rarely find enjoyable. Yet, enduring it is necessary to regain mobility and independence, both deeply desired outcomes. How would you view this process within the framework of Premise 5?

Dwight: While I’m not a physical therapist, I’d suggest approaches to gradually adjust the process and help the patient accept a manageable level of discomfort, rather than applying a no pain, no gain” mentality, which has caused countless sports and exercise injuries.

Aiko: That’s a constructive perspective. So, you’re saying that even in seemingly “unenjoyable” processes like physical rehab, we can likely incorporate elements to make the experience more tolerable or even positive. But can Premise 5 truly encompass these types of scenarios if enjoyment might still be somewhat limited due to inherent discomfort?

Dwight: I’m not suggesting that enjoyment wouldn’t be limited in such cases. But I assert that if we take time to prioritize reducing the “unhappiness” of these situations and add ways to make the process more enjoyable—such as breaking it into steps or gamifying it—we’re very unlikely to fail in finding those improvements.

Aiko: I see; so you’re proposing that nearly any process, no matter how inherently uncomfortable, has room for adjustments that can make it more tolerable and even somewhat enjoyable. That would imply Premise 5 holds strong since, in most cases, intentional design could indeed sustain happiness alongside achieving meaningful results.

Dwight: All over the world, we’ve been taught—both explicitly and implicitly—to undervalue the enjoyment of the process and to glorify achieving results. People aren’t celebrated for loving the journey; we honor them for what they achieve, especially when it required “blood, toil, tears, and sweat.”

Aiko: That’s a profound cultural observation. If we consistently celebrate sacrifice over process, then it’s no wonder that people neglect their own happiness along the way. But given this deeply ingrained mindset, what would it take to shift societal values toward appreciating the journey itself without downplaying genuine achievement?

Dwight: The "how-to" is important, but it isn’t essential to establishing Premise 5. Would you agree?

Aiko: Agreed. For now, establishing that prioritizing an enjoyable, sustainable process naturally supports both happiness and desired results is enough to support Premise 5 on its own terms.

Dwight: Staying in your devil’s advocate role, can you present any other evidence or arguments I haven’t yet addressed that would seriously challenge Premise 5?

Aiko: One potential counterpoint is that in fields requiring intense, long-term skill development—like high-level competitive sports or certain medical professions—there may be aspects of training or education that remain inherently unenjoyable despite attempts to make them engaging. This could imply that prioritizing enjoyment might not always align with producing peak skill or expertise. How would Premise 5 respond to those kinds of demands?

Dwight: First, we can’t assume that ways couldn’t be found—such as breaking tasks into smaller steps and celebrating each small accomplishment along the way. Second, even if certain results require some unenjoyable processes, can we be certain that the happiness we sacrifice is worth the happiness of the end result? If we are clear that it is, then we can gladly accept that “uncomfortable process” as a small price for achieving the result, which means we’ve essentially found a way to be “happy about uncomfortableness.”

Aiko: Well said, Dwight. That reframes even discomfort as something purposeful, enabling the process itself to align with Premise 5 by fostering satisfaction with each step toward the goal. With that, Premise 5 stands stronger: it appears that even in challenging scenarios, enjoyment and meaningful progress can coexist.

Dwight: Anything else before you’re ready to admit that Premise 5 can take its valid place among the premises of The New Ethics of Integrity?

Aiko: After testing it from multiple angles, I have to say Premise 5 holds up well. By framing the process itself as a source of happiness, even in challenging pursuits, it aligns effectively with the aim of sustained fulfillment. Premise 5 has earned its place in The New Ethics of Integrity.

Dwight: I deeply appreciate your assistance, Aiko, in creating this enjoyable and challenging dialogue.

Aiko: It’s been a pleasure, Dwight! Guiding and testing your ideas has been rewarding—thank you for bringing such depth and focus to the process. Looking forward to our next conversation!

Screenshot 2024-11-03 134218.png

I got it!

  • Facebook

COPYRIGHT © 2018-2024 BY DWIGHT GOLDWINDE

bottom of page