We often believe that all of life’s problems would be solved if only we knew what we were good at. Thus, we harbor a fantasy that if genetic analysis technology could provide us with a “talent list,” we would finally enjoy optimized happiness. However, we already know the truth. Even at this very moment, countless individuals sustain their livelihoods by doing what they are “good at,” while their hearts wander toward “other things they like.”
“Being Good” is Function; “Liking” is Existence
What a genotype determines is usually functional potential. Some may process information quickly; others may have excellent muscle recovery. Yet, that “fast information processing ability” does not necessarily lead a person to programming or accounting.
Doing something well is a “useful tool” I can offer the world, but doing something I like is the “way” I wish to relate to the world. Having a magnificent tool doesn’t mean the process of using it is inherently enjoyable. Genes can hand us a “hammer,” but they cannot tell us whether to build a house, carve a sculpture, or simply leave it aside.
Marginal Utility Diminishes Faster in What We Are “Good At”
This becomes clearer when we apply the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. When we repeat tasks we excel at, we gain efficiency, but we also succumb to boredom more quickly. As proficiency increases, the brain processes the action as a “default” to save energy.
In contrast, doing what we like—even if inefficient—keeps us awake in every moment. The trial and error caused by a lack of mastery, and the time of immersion poured in to fill that deficiency, act as powerful antioxidants that delay the onset of diminishing utility. When genetic optimization focuses only on “being good,” humans may paradoxically become unhappy faster due to that very efficiency.
The “Unpredictability” That Genes Can Never Invade
Just as the reason we fantasize about happiness might be that we have never experienced it, our fantasy about doing what we love might stem from never having lived an “authentic life.”
If my genotype declares, “You are optimized for athletics,” and I respond, “I feel most alive when I sit and write,” that is the moment human unpredictability manifests, overcoming genetic determinism. Happiness is not found in running along the optimal orbit set by genes; it is found in the “spark” generated when we deviate from that orbit and collide with something we love.
Ultimately, It Returns to a Matter of “Management”
In the end, life is a process of managing pain and constructing an environment through the things we do well (means), while savoring the occasional moments of doing what we love (purpose) upon that foundation.
Even if we decipher the genotype, the distance between “being good” and “liking” will not diminish. Rather, acknowledging that distance—sustaining life with what we do well while never ceasing the longing for what we love—is the most realistic form of self-actualization we can achieve. Genes may draw a map for us, but they will ultimately keep secret which direction will make our hearts race.
Leave a Reply