What is a real problem and a non-problem?

A close relative of mine passed away recently. She was in her nineties and always had a great attitude toward life. She never complained and she handled difficult and, in some cases, extremely profound problems and challenges very well.

Lately I have been having conversations with the gentleman who runs this blog:

http://www.conversationswithnoone.blogspot.com/

Our exchanges have been about how so many people we know and have known seem to manufacture drama, chaos and "problems" out of thin air while simultaneously living a life blissfully free of an "Real Problems".

What does this mean? Well, the woman I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the woman in her nineties who recently passed away, lived through 2 world wars, the great depression (during which she struggled to buy food and heat her dwelling), the cold war, the death of many loved ones (including her son) and she cared for her severely ill husband, without complaint, for 30 years. These incidents are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to challenges she met and conquered in her lifetime.

She was, by definition a "happy" person. She loved life, regardless of life's challenges.

Compare this to other individuals I have known. People who, in the absence of any survival or life threatening challenges; in absence of a handicapped child or spouse to care for, manage to still carve our a slice of "drama" by making incredibly poor choices or by finding problems through a complicated process of spending a lot of time looking for problems. Some of these individuals will even go into crisis mode over a problem that belongs to someone else (like a relative or friend). Or they will expend a tremendous amount of energy to regard what "might" happen, but has not happened yet.

The "poor choice" candidate is of the most disturbing. I will not get into specific details of such choices (so as not to embarrass those of whom I speak), but lets just say that if they chose to stop drinking and pursued a legitimate career their lives would be absent of any real problems whatsoever.

This seems to be a common pattern as well. People who go through most of their life without having to face such things as a debilitating illness or starvation or caring for a handicapped child often put a tremendous amount of energy into having a crisis over things such as getting a speeding ticket or not being able to find their keys to the car. Or they make incredibly poor choices, like driving while intoxicated, and then live out a drama for months revolving around the consequence of their original bad choice (note: these individuals usually continue to make poor choices and live out melodrama's that revolve around the poor choices they make).

The other factor is these individuals do not hold themselves accountable and therefore do not resolve the crises they manufacture. The resolution is up to others in their life to solve, and once solved the crisis is forgotten; at least for six months or so until they need to manufacture another one to feel important. They are perpetually the victim; perpetually they do not get the advantages others seem to get; perpetually they always get the short end of the stick.

This is a very sad, and delusional, way to stumble through life. All success is built upon a foundation of many successions of failure. Those who succeed are those who do not accept defeat and keep going in the face of defeat.

By contrast, those of us who have lived through the experience of caring for a handicapped relative, or have fought in a war and faced death, or have been so poor they were not able to get food for their families, or have faced and conquered a life threatening illness, seem to face everyday problems without regard for "crisis" and without all the energy and raving so common to so many people I have known.

So, as my conversation with the "Conversations With No One" guy evolved, I began to put it into a metric; Real Problems vs. Non-Problems.

Since there are so many Non-Problems, I will only cite the Real Problems as an example:

1) You have a life threatening illness that requires the main focus of your energy

2) You care for a person who has a life threatening illness

3) You have a special needs child that requires the majority of your focus

4) You have survival issues (such as not being able to buy food)

6) You live in an environment that is dangerous and/or unhealthy (abusive spouse, high crime, poverty, drug abuse, etc...)

Basically, a Real Problem deals mainly with your health and the health of your loved ones and a Real Problem is out of your control (i.e. an illness or extreme poverty where you can not obtain food).

If you have a job, you are healthy, your loved ones are healthy, and you can put food on the table, then any other problem you face is solvable through good choices and discipline.

Yet, how many in our culture live lives free of such burdens yet still find problems and drama at every turn? Almost always they are problems that are unnecessary and drama that is completely avoidable.

So, we concluded that people manufacture crisis and drama because they need it in some cases. Crisis makes you feel important; it gives your life meaning. So, if you don't have any Real Problems, why not make some so that your life has a more profound meaning.

This concept seems to ring true.

Once you have lived through Real Problems, it is easier to let the Non-Problems fade into the background. This is what my ninety six year old relative did. This is why she lived a happy life.

She was able to recognize Real Problems. Non-Problems would drift right by here. She paid attention to making wise choices and not stupid ones through a simple process of giving regard to "consequence".

People who have lived through profound tragedy, Real Problems, seem to find a million different ways to be happy in life.

The ability to recognize a Non-Problem is significant, and should be taught in school. Too often people with genuinely good lives fall into the "victim" complex and feed into the crisis of avoidable problems.

It is odd how past "role models" for young people, individuals like Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears, seem to exemplify that tragedy of creating problems for themselves in the gross void of Real Problems. They are rich, young successful, etc.

Why don't we make role models from those who make good choices and, in the absence of Real Problems in their own life go out and contribute to the solutions of those who have Real Problems.

One individual who stands out as a great potential teenage role model is Ronan Farrow (son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, born Dec. 1987).

~

"Since 2001 (age 13), Ronan Farrow has worked as a UNICEF Spokesperson for Youth in Nigeria, Angola, and Sudan. In 2001, he worked with youth groups and local leaders on the AIDS epidemic in Nigeria. In 2002, he traveled to Angola, assisting in fundraising and addressing United Nations groups on that country's needs in the immediate aftermath of decades of civil war. On 1 June 2006, Ronan Farrow hosted a summit at the United Nations headquarters on ensuring that children are included in the global movement for universal access to AIDS prevention and treatment.

In 2004 (age 16), Farrow worked in the Darfur region of Sudan, where he was joined by his mother advocating for refugees. During the following year, his writings on the Darfur conflict appeared in Newsday and the Boston Herald. He has since appeared on MSNBC, ABC, and CNN advocating for the protection of Darfuri refugees. Ronan Farrow returned to Darfur with UNICEF in June 2006 (age 18). While there, Farrow continued to author reports from the region, including a column on child soldiers fighting in the region that ran in the International Herald Tribune on 4 July 2006, and an article on the relationship between China and the government of Sudan, which appeared in The Wall Street Journal on August 10, 2006.

In 2005, Farrow signed on as a representative of the Genocide Intervention Network, working to build support for the protection of civilians threatened by genocide.

In 2007, he served under the chief counsel of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs. In Spring 2008, he accompanied a congressional delegation to the Horn of Africa, during which he authored a column for the Los Angeles Times on Ethiopia's brutal counter-insurgency in the Ogaden desert.

On 4 October 2007, Farrow testified before the U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus, advocating for increased funding for UN Peacekeeping efforts.

Farrow's recent columns for the The Wall Street Journal have focused on the controversial track record of the United Nations Human Rights Council and President Bush's decision to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games.

In January 2009 (age 21), he was named by New York Magazine as their "New Activist" of the year and one of fourteen "New Yorkers on the verge of changing their worlds." "

~

So, why so much focus on "bad decision making drama seekers" like Lindsay Lohan and Kim Kardashian and not a word on this guy?

Well, he just isn't interesting enough. He doesn't have any juicy problems we can dissect and ruminate over. I'm sure if he started attending Hollywood parties, sleeping with starlets, doing drugs and driving drunk he'd be all over the magazines.