Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Why extreme is bad, or is it?

For today's blog, I'd like to pose a question: why is extreme bad?  I've been thinking about this a lot recently as people typically use that term to define or quantify activities I'm doing.  I run more than most (but far less than some) and that to some is extreme... I practice clarinet more than most (again, far less than some)... My wife and I are pretty good at managing our money.... I can do a modest number of pull-ups... I'm "plant powered"... I manage my time well.... all these things, from a certain perspective are no big deal or world-class (unfortunately. Sponsors feel free to chime in, maybe we can take some of these up a notch) but routinely are described as "extreme." So this led me to thinking, maybe extreme is defined by perspective?  Perhaps "abnormal" would be a better term.  It is somewhat abnormal to meet a clarinetist who routinely does workouts consisting of 300 pull-ups.  It is somewhat abnormal to meet an ultra runner who performs classical music recitals and concerts as often as I do.  But is this extreme? Or are we abusing the word like we do with "awesome."

Initially, I thought maybe excessive might be a better term for it all but even that implies that there is too much or an excess of activity.  Clearly, this cannot be the case.  Unconventional, yes.  Extreme?  Probably not.  This perspective may indicate a larger societal problem indicating that our musicians are largely sedentary (I can't tell you the number of times I have walked down the hall either as a student or a professor or heard on breaks from rehearsal someone complaining about wanting to lose some weight due to their lifestyle).  The other societal problem is that a fair number of top athletes offer zero intellectual or humanitarian contributions to the greater good.  Not everyone needs to grow up and be Gandhi in both physique and contributions but just bumping along is not a way I am willing to spend my days.

I lived in Boulder, Colorado for a number of years both during and after my undergraduate study.  There are a large number of world-class athletes and Nobel Laureates and even some Grammy winners.   Are these people all extreme or are they just good at what they do?  If they are "extreme," why is that a negative thing?  I would argue they are good at what they do, have a plan for success, and work diligently and patiently at their pursuits.   The take away from this is, if you are working towards your goals, let them be extreme.  Roger Bannister was once called extreme.  He remains a shining example of someone with a great intellect and athletic prowess.  Go break your own 4 minute mile, extreme as that may be!

No comments:

Post a Comment