go to mobile version »

Flip Side »

 

Ferrari

A Ferrari Spider, key to unhappiness

 

Humor: The secret of happiness is discovered

Alas, buying a Ferrari is a terrible thing to do to your Suck-Up Ratio.

Getting something you want—a promotion, money, a new car—brings happiness for only a short period. After six months, one is usually less happy than before. In the latest issue of The New England Journal of Despair Dr. H. G. Rector proposes the SUR theory to explain this phenomenon.

An associate professor of psychopathology at Boston University, Dr. Rector contends that happiness is most affected by one’s Suck-Up Ratio (SUR), that is the ratio of people to whom you have to suck up (suckupees) to the people who suck up to you (suckupors). Happiness decrease as you must suck up to more people and increases as more suck up to you.

However, the relationship is not even. Dr. Rector’s research reveals that it takes at least five additional suckupors to offset the pain of a single new suckupee. This explains why getting what you want can decrease happiness. Consider three examples:

Promotion: A corporate controller is promoted to Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Previously she needed to suck up to her boss, the then CFO, and the CEO. In turn, 14 employees sucked up to her producing a happy 7:1 SUR. Now as CFO, she must suck up to the CEO plus the nine members of the board of directors. At best she will add 16 new suckupors in the finance department. Her SUR is now 3:1 and she is miserable.

Money: Suppose through a windfall—winning the lottery, receiving a government bailout, or robbing a bank—you receive $100 million. You are immediately invited to join the board of a prestigious non-profit institution. Fifteen board members suck up to you, hoping you will write checks to this and other non-profits. Ten consider you an arriviste and expect you to suck up to them.

To maintain 5:1 SUR you need to attract 35 additional suckupors. Attempting to do so you join another board with the same result and are now 79 suckupors short. You are now rich and unhappy.

The above scenario may not hold in all locations. For example, in Seattle social climbing is unknown for the same reasons mountaineering is unknown in Kansas—there is nowhere to climb. (We are talking about a town where “old money” means you invested in Amazon in 1997.)

A new car: You buy your dream car, A 1961 Ferrari Spider for $1,089,900. You now must suck up to Giancarlo, the mechanic on whom you are totally dependent. No one new sucks up to you because you are a fool.

Does this mean we should avoid obtaining things we desire? “I’ll tell you once I get tenure,” Dr. Rector replies.

Steve Clifford writes humor for Crosscut. In his unhumorous life, he was CEO of King Broadcasting and once played a role in saving New York City from bankruptcy.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!


Comments:

Posted Tue, May 26, 7:15 a.m. inappropriate

Totally brilliant--espec. the final sentence. (Definition of brilliant? 1) In accord with my own thinking; and 2) Anything that produces a "Wish I'd thought of that" motor response.)

My only added thought is this: Can we somehow adjust the SUR to reflect one more crucial element--one that can obliterate even the loftiest ratio, or overcome a lowly one? How can one account for the critical X factor called "My spouse actually thinks I know what I'm talking about" or conversely, "My spouse thinks I haven't a clue." The possibility that she KNOWS you haven't a clue--and is right--annihilates even a 20:1 SUR. (And yes, my use of "she" reveals that my prior references to "spouse" were half-hearted attempts to conceal an ingrained gender bias--at leaqst when it comes to "spouses.")

Posted Thu, May 28, 6:58 a.m. inappropriate

My issue: how to handle a "0" in the denominator (suckupors). Isn't an infinite SUR pretty good?

Join Crosscut now! Subscribe to Newsletter About Crosscut Advertise Web Feeds