I accidentally invented a new Sloppy Joe recipe last night.
I was making turkey tacos–one of my favorite meals–and I decided to get rid of a few mostly-empty jars of hot pepper rings and jalepenos that were taking up space in the fridge by dumping them into the simmering ground turkey. While I was rooting around, I grabbed a rogue can of Diet Dr. Pepper and added that as well.
The resulting concoction was less my typical 5-alarm taco filling and more a sweet, barbeque-style meat mixture that reminded me of the Sloppy Joes we often had growing up. I couldn’t help but be disappointed, as I was looking forward to having my taste buds seared off, but I filed the experience away for future reference.
It made me think of an article I came across earlier this week, an op-ed piece in the New York Times by David Brooks that talks about the essential differences in what he terms the “Well-Planned Life” vs. “The Summoned Life.”
The crux of the article is that there are two fundamental philosophies behind planning out your life: a “well-planned life” focuses on the long-term goals, in finding a purpose and a direction, and in building a strong foundation for an eventual outcome. The “summoned life,” on the other hand, focuses on the here and now, suggesting that it is impossible for a 22-year-old to discover a “life’s purpose” at such a tender age, and that it makes more sense to treat life as an exploration, a journey, and not a problem to be solved.
It’s like a difference in cooking philosophies: there are the recipe cooks, planning for a banquet, measuring spices and guaranteeing a successful feast where every dish is perfectly cooked and presented with impeccable timing. And then there are the cooks who dump a can of diet soda into a pan of ground turkey because, hey, I’ve got this can, and who knows what will happen? You want the first chef to make Thanksgiving dinner or cater your wedding, but the second chef has a better shot at winning one of those cooking shows.
Two cooks, two very different courses. Is one “better” than the other?
I’m not sure that looking at successful people provides definitive guidance. Most “traditional” success stories–doctors, lawyers, CEOs, politicians–seem to use a long-term plan that includes careful selection of everything from the school they attend to the company they keep. On the other hand, plenty of entrepreneurs, actors, artists and others were able to find success like playing a game of Frogger, jumping from log to lilly pad in the nick of time. Some, like Richard Branson or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, seem to have used a combination of the two: carefully exploiting short-term circumstances in the pursuit of a larger vision.
And of course, what the article doesn’t explicitly say is that a blended approach probably makes the most sense in general. You need to have some long-term goals, to be able to say, “Spending four years now in college rather than earning money will cost me more in the short-term, but will pay off in the long run,” or “It is important for me to spend time cultivating this relationship today, because it will become more valuable later in life.” But I think you also need to be able to make day-to-day choices based on exploring new options as they become available–to move to a new city, take a different job, go on an adventure now and then.
Or, just cook something unusual for dinner.