What your piece made me think about is how the definition of success often comes from whatever feels most absent. When money is scarce, money becomes the whole definition. When someone has enough, they start saying "money isn't everything." The definition isn't just culturally absorbed — it's shaped by what's missing inside. The gap becomes the goal.
That might be part of why money sits so firmly as the default metric. It's not that people have carefully reasoned their way to it — it's that money is the most visible, most comparable proxy for "not struggling anymore." In a world full of comparison points, the easiest thing to measure becomes the easiest thing to chase.
Your zero-sum test is useful here. There's a Japanese phrase — 知足者富 (chī zú zhě fù), "the one who knows enough is rich." It points toward a definition of success that doesn't require anyone else's loss. But I'll be honest — knowing that and living it are very different things when there's so much around you designed to make "enough" feel like it's never quite here yet.
If I could actually pin my own definition, it would be something close to 晴耕雨読 (seikō udoku) — "plow when it's sunny, read when it rains." A life shaped by the weather, not by someone else's scoreboard. It doesn't require winning anything. It doesn't cost anyone anything. It's just a quiet rhythm that fits.
But I also know that's easier to write than to protect.
@Arimitsu Journal, this comment adds a mechanism I didn't name in the essay, and I want to pull it out so other readers see it: "the gap becomes the goal."
That's a meaning repair in itself. It explains why money sits so firmly as the default metric even when people intellectually know better. The definition of success gets shaped by whatever feels most absent, and money is the most visible, most comparable proxy for "not struggling anymore." The scarcity heuristic is reading a real signal from a real history of deprivation, and it keeps reading that signal long after the conditions have changed. @Eric Patterson 's win-win-win frame shows what the update looks like at the operational level; @Katia Raina 's "co-create and not try to save the world" shows what it looks like at the personal one. You're naming the upstream force that makes both of those corrections necessary in the first place.
知足者富 and 晴耕雨読 are doing serious work here (I had to copy and paste here). "The one who knows enough is rich" is the zero-sum test restated as sufficiency. "Plow when it's sunny, read when it rains" is a definition pinned to rhythm instead of accumulation — autonomy, competence, and relatedness arranged around the weather rather than someone else's scoreboard. That's a full pin: includes (rhythm, sufficiency, quiet), excludes (comparison, accumulation as proof), revisit (when the weather of your life changes).
Your last line is the honest part: "easier to write than to protect." That's true of every definition worth pinning. The pressure will keep trying to redefine the word on you, and the pin is what you return to when it does. Writing it down where future-you will see it is the protection. The move holds even when holding it is hard.
Thank you for bringing this to the essay. The gap-becomes-the-goal framing is going into my notes.
Well said. in business sales, we like to discuss the win, win, win scenario as a goal for securing orders: Good for the customer, good for the distributor and good for the manufacturer. Internally we are working together to compete with other vendors for orders. The if I win and you have to lose mentality was replaced by this philosphy years ago. What we are seeing now in world market place of countries, being pushed by US leadership (or lack there of) is this we have to win and they have to lose scenario. Creates chaos and distrust very quickly...
@Eric Patterson, thank you. Your win-win-win model is the essay's boundary rule in action at the operational level, and I want to make sure that connection is visible for readers.
Customer, distributor, manufacturer — each gains, and each gain strengthens the others. The total value expands. Meanwhile, your teams still compete with other vendors for orders. Competition in its proper domain (one contract, fixed resource). Collaboration in its proper domain (internal coordination, expandable resource). That's the architecture the essay describes.
Then you scaled it to the current geopolitical picture, and the pattern flips. "We have to win and they have to lose" is the zero-sum bias applied to trade relationships where collaboration would grow the total value for everyone at the table. I agree with so much. The research predicts exactly what you're seeing: chaos and distrust arrive fast when zero-sum thinking colonizes a non-zero-sum space.
Same mechanism at three scales. Appreciate you showing how it works in the field.
My definition of success has definitely evolved over decades (and whoever is reading this, it's likely that yours has too). Now it's "living up to my own potential, doing whatever I 'came here to do,' and leaving behind as much of a positive impact as possible." There's still a bit of a "divine homework" flavor here -- and that may be okay, or it may change again. It's definitely got autonomy, right? Lots of room for creativity here, as long as I continue to not be rigid about my views of my own destiny. The opportunity for mastery is endless. And connection can be inherent in impact -- as long as I make sure to co-create and not try to save the world.
Katia, your comment is the repair protocol in this essay running live, and I want to make sure you (and others) see it.
You stated your definition. You checked it against all three needs: autonomy ("lots of room for creativity"), competence ("the opportunity for mastery is endless"), and relatedness ("connection can be inherent in impact"). You flagged the part that might shift ("divine homework"). And then you drew the boundary that matters most: "co-create and not try to save the world."
That last line is doing heavy lifting. "Saving" can carry a hidden zero-sum assumption that someone else's growth depends on your intervention rather than their own agency. You caught it and redirected toward co-creation, which keeps all three needs intact for everyone involved.
The fact that your definition has evolved over decades is proof that the pin works the way it should, steady enough to act on, loose enough to revisit. Thank you for modeling this in the open.
What your piece made me think about is how the definition of success often comes from whatever feels most absent. When money is scarce, money becomes the whole definition. When someone has enough, they start saying "money isn't everything." The definition isn't just culturally absorbed — it's shaped by what's missing inside. The gap becomes the goal.
That might be part of why money sits so firmly as the default metric. It's not that people have carefully reasoned their way to it — it's that money is the most visible, most comparable proxy for "not struggling anymore." In a world full of comparison points, the easiest thing to measure becomes the easiest thing to chase.
Your zero-sum test is useful here. There's a Japanese phrase — 知足者富 (chī zú zhě fù), "the one who knows enough is rich." It points toward a definition of success that doesn't require anyone else's loss. But I'll be honest — knowing that and living it are very different things when there's so much around you designed to make "enough" feel like it's never quite here yet.
If I could actually pin my own definition, it would be something close to 晴耕雨読 (seikō udoku) — "plow when it's sunny, read when it rains." A life shaped by the weather, not by someone else's scoreboard. It doesn't require winning anything. It doesn't cost anyone anything. It's just a quiet rhythm that fits.
But I also know that's easier to write than to protect.
@Arimitsu Journal, this comment adds a mechanism I didn't name in the essay, and I want to pull it out so other readers see it: "the gap becomes the goal."
That's a meaning repair in itself. It explains why money sits so firmly as the default metric even when people intellectually know better. The definition of success gets shaped by whatever feels most absent, and money is the most visible, most comparable proxy for "not struggling anymore." The scarcity heuristic is reading a real signal from a real history of deprivation, and it keeps reading that signal long after the conditions have changed. @Eric Patterson 's win-win-win frame shows what the update looks like at the operational level; @Katia Raina 's "co-create and not try to save the world" shows what it looks like at the personal one. You're naming the upstream force that makes both of those corrections necessary in the first place.
知足者富 and 晴耕雨読 are doing serious work here (I had to copy and paste here). "The one who knows enough is rich" is the zero-sum test restated as sufficiency. "Plow when it's sunny, read when it rains" is a definition pinned to rhythm instead of accumulation — autonomy, competence, and relatedness arranged around the weather rather than someone else's scoreboard. That's a full pin: includes (rhythm, sufficiency, quiet), excludes (comparison, accumulation as proof), revisit (when the weather of your life changes).
Your last line is the honest part: "easier to write than to protect." That's true of every definition worth pinning. The pressure will keep trying to redefine the word on you, and the pin is what you return to when it does. Writing it down where future-you will see it is the protection. The move holds even when holding it is hard.
Thank you for bringing this to the essay. The gap-becomes-the-goal framing is going into my notes.
Excellent article Jerry!
I am glad I read it.
Your right. It dovetails in nicely with the short note I posted.
Indeed it does. Especially, the zero-sum framing. Thanks for reading!
Well said. in business sales, we like to discuss the win, win, win scenario as a goal for securing orders: Good for the customer, good for the distributor and good for the manufacturer. Internally we are working together to compete with other vendors for orders. The if I win and you have to lose mentality was replaced by this philosphy years ago. What we are seeing now in world market place of countries, being pushed by US leadership (or lack there of) is this we have to win and they have to lose scenario. Creates chaos and distrust very quickly...
@Eric Patterson, thank you. Your win-win-win model is the essay's boundary rule in action at the operational level, and I want to make sure that connection is visible for readers.
Customer, distributor, manufacturer — each gains, and each gain strengthens the others. The total value expands. Meanwhile, your teams still compete with other vendors for orders. Competition in its proper domain (one contract, fixed resource). Collaboration in its proper domain (internal coordination, expandable resource). That's the architecture the essay describes.
Then you scaled it to the current geopolitical picture, and the pattern flips. "We have to win and they have to lose" is the zero-sum bias applied to trade relationships where collaboration would grow the total value for everyone at the table. I agree with so much. The research predicts exactly what you're seeing: chaos and distrust arrive fast when zero-sum thinking colonizes a non-zero-sum space.
Same mechanism at three scales. Appreciate you showing how it works in the field.
My definition of success has definitely evolved over decades (and whoever is reading this, it's likely that yours has too). Now it's "living up to my own potential, doing whatever I 'came here to do,' and leaving behind as much of a positive impact as possible." There's still a bit of a "divine homework" flavor here -- and that may be okay, or it may change again. It's definitely got autonomy, right? Lots of room for creativity here, as long as I continue to not be rigid about my views of my own destiny. The opportunity for mastery is endless. And connection can be inherent in impact -- as long as I make sure to co-create and not try to save the world.
Katia, your comment is the repair protocol in this essay running live, and I want to make sure you (and others) see it.
You stated your definition. You checked it against all three needs: autonomy ("lots of room for creativity"), competence ("the opportunity for mastery is endless"), and relatedness ("connection can be inherent in impact"). You flagged the part that might shift ("divine homework"). And then you drew the boundary that matters most: "co-create and not try to save the world."
That last line is doing heavy lifting. "Saving" can carry a hidden zero-sum assumption that someone else's growth depends on your intervention rather than their own agency. You caught it and redirected toward co-creation, which keeps all three needs intact for everyone involved.
The fact that your definition has evolved over decades is proof that the pin works the way it should, steady enough to act on, loose enough to revisit. Thank you for modeling this in the open.