Okay. So Stephen Hawking appears to have followed his passion. But has he really. I mean, really.

Lets face it, we're all pretty well interested in Stephen Hawking type of stuff, right?

Wouldn't it be great to be paid to study it? Sure it would. And if given the opportunity, you probably would.

Now put yourself in his place. He's stuck in a wheelchair and his prospects for a successful life of any note outside of academia are pretty remote.

When given the choices of "get paid to study and teach cosmology" or "spend the rest of your life being worthless and a drain on everyone around you" it would appear there is no choice. You go with what's better for you and those around you. And in his case, it was cosmology.

Also consider the "scientist" who gets the grant to go and study the mating habits of the purple-spotted bibby dippy beatle which only lives in a 50 square meter bit of rain-forest down in South America, and nowhere else on the planet.

That scientist, in my opinion, is doing everything in their power to be "kept" instead of having to stand on his own two feet in the real world.

He's not so much motivated by his love of the bibby dippy beatle, but by being able to rely on the system and do what he considers to be fun - science.

Now let me ask you, how would you feel about flipping burgers at MacDonalds if it paid $100 an hour?

At $5 an hour it might feel like a drag, but at $100 an hour... you'd probably be keen to get to work. You'd love it. Heck, at $100 an hour you might even go dig wholes with your hands and still love it.

Okay, so I'm going a bit overboard here. But it's the point that's important. And that is,

a lot of what you might think of as a drag would actually be very enjoyable and you'd be enthusiastic about it if you got more money in your hand for doing it.

We are all esentially still children... we want to do what we want and be kept. No thought of money, or bills, etc.

To be responsible for yourself is a big step up in the world. Much easier and desireable to have the responsibility handled by someone else.

This is what's so appealing about our democratic-socialist system to those who fear looking after themselves and having to perform.

But I digress... the point is,

our perception of a thing is directly related to the reward the thing gives.

If lawyers were suddenly relegated to earning $10 an hour and street sweepers earned $200+ an hour, how many people do you think would suddenly want to be street sweepers? And how many current street sweepers who hate their job would suddenly find it enjoyable and even look forward to going to work?

The higher the reward the more I'll enjoy a thing. Each thing having its own reward/satisfaction level.

All things being equal, you could even say there are four levels.

1: You won't do it.
2: You do it but don't enjoy it.
3: It's not too bad.
4: You like it.

And you'll most likely experience one of those four feelings based on the reward (income) the thing gives you.

Go down a mine for $5 an hour and you'll probably be at level 1... you won't do it.

At $20 an hour you might do it but not enjoy it.

At $50 an hour you might think it's not too bad.

But at $2000 an hour you'd probably love it.

So if you're doing something, rate yourself on the four level scale as it is at the moment. Now think of what amount of reward would bump you up a level.

Of course, this scale does not take into account things which would conflict with your moral and ethical core.

Comments?

Michael Ross.