Five People Who Control Us

There is a well-known saying by American entrepreneur, Jim Rohn: “You are approximately the average of the five people you spend the most time with”. On a surface level, this is quite an intuitive concept - those you interact with on an extremely frequent basis will influence your personality, ideas, and thinking. However, on another level, this concept carries the assertion that human nature is incredibly malleable and hints that people are highly susceptible to manipulative molding and shaping. Are we ever in control of the decisions we make for ourselves, and the actions that make us who we are? The classic debate of free will versus determinism manifests itself through the subconscious formation of a human being.

Abstractly, these “five people” can be the numerous factors in society which influence and shape our character and psyche (as opposed to five literal people in our lives). These factors can filter into our intuition, infiltrate our supposed free will, and create a product of evidence for determinism.

One of the influences which are so pervasive, yet so obscured, is the existence of “social constructs”. Societal norms are often followed with neither question nor challenge by a majority of people, engendering a population of mechanical automatons estranged from independent reason and individual authenticity. Social constructs may range from the intentionally malicious manipulations of the beauty industry to miniscule intricacies of status quo left unquestioned.

To illustrate, one may scrutinize the universalized concept of marriage. Perversely marriage is the act of forcing oneself into voluntary, legal commitment to a situation in which one may not wish to remain in future; it is a decision one makes in youth that binds one to a fate they are legally obliged to adhere to, decades down the line. No other species in the Animal Kingdom follows customs of commitment so unnecessary and irrational. Yet, its role as the traditional norm in society has resulted in the common view of marriage as a symbol of love and unity, or an obligatory goal deemed worthy of achieving. The influence of outdated traditions and the pressure of societal dictations are shown to propel humans into irrational decision-making, and thus goes against the concept of true free will and autonomy.

In certain instances, the covertly manipulative effect of established social standards instill possibly toxic ideals. An effect of this may be illustrated through patriarchal roles. Such toxic concepts are so subtly normalized that society takes them for granted as the ideal state of affairs; the state in which things should be. Even in 2020, there still exists the prevailingly enforced idea that a man’s role precedes a woman’s; that the essence of a typical “woman” involves subjugation to man. Two main issues arise - the first, obvious issue is the negative effect against women. This definition ingrains the idea that the inherent quality of being a “girl” is, in and of itself, derogatory. From this stems the glorified concept of “not being like other girls”, fueling manifestations of prejudice and discrimination against one’s own gender. The second issue is that this results in “toxic masculinity”. The idea that a man’s role precedes that of the woman leads to the subsequent belief that men have authority over women; from these ideas, it follows that a man who is unable to control a woman lacks masculinity and loses the right to their supposed superior status. There are a myriad of fallacious illogicalities with this ideology, which is not something that we, as members of society, are completely oblivious to; however, we still experience the inexplicable urge to conform to these ideals in spite of their known pernicious effects. This is due to how utterly ingrained and normalized these concepts are, allowing them to prevail and drive society against independent, rational judgement; subsequently, against the reigning of free will.

Similar to the perniciousness of toxic masculinity is the influence of fictional media. In adolescence, our idealistic dispositions cause the investment of much energy into fictional realms. The impressionable nature of the teenager, allows the subconscious collection of data from these works of dramatized imagination, in order to fuel intuition. Here, works of fiction may teach a number of erroneous concepts or feed counterproductive approaches to life. Concoctions of “archetypes” create the iconic characters we see on pages and screens - Sherlock Holmes, the genius detective; Joe Goldberg, the humanized villain who challenges the audience’s personal sense of ingrained morality; Blair Waldorf, the outspoken, independent, “love-to-hate” character; the list goes on. While the existence of these archetypes are seemingly innocuous (after all, are they not simply characters who fuel make-believe plots?), they are still enticing products of creative projection, and may play on the audience’s sympathies and values. Furthermore, through time and extended exposure, this may inadvertently (if not consciously, and deliberately) morph one into a repressive and reductive product of this artful manipulation. This phenomena is therefore an attack on the possibility of free will over one’s identity.

Jim Ronh’s main message, however, behind the original quote, was intended to be a constructive tip: be cautious of those we let into our lives. Although the pervasively covert influences that envelop us may be difficult to rid of, we can replace those “five people” with others who aid us in overcoming their effects. Such “people” can include open-mindedness, critical thinking, creativity, originality; with these “five people”, awareness can be developed, and the advantages of human nature’s malleability are shown.