There was interesting editorial in the nytimes today, and I thought it would be a fair question to pose. Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow? The following is the beginning of the article.
Two things happened to Sandra Bullock this month. First, she won an Academy Award for best actress. Then came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?
On the one hand, an Academy Award is nothing to sneeze at. Bullock has earned the admiration of her peers in a way very few experience. She’ll make more money for years to come. She may even live longer. Research by Donald A. Redelmeier and Sheldon M. Singh has found that, on average, Oscar winners live nearly four years longer than nominees that don’t win.
Nonetheless, if you had to take more than three seconds to think about this question, you are absolutely crazy. Marital happiness is far more important than anything else in determining personal well-being. If you have a successful marriage, it doesn’t matter how many professional setbacks you endure, you will be reasonably happy. If you have an unsuccessful marriage, it doesn’t matter how many career triumphs you record, you will remain significantly unfulfilled.
...
nytimes article cont...
For me, I believe I would prefer professional success. Maybe because I am a selfish person, but being successful in my career is something I achieve because of myself and for myself. Having the whole husband, kids + dog thing isn't something that I've ever really wanted and always seems like a life that isn't my own. I see a lot of people who have all these personal aspirations who trade it all to live vicariously through their children, and I don't think I could do that. Maybe because I'm still relatively young, but, at least for now, I'd like to live for myself.