Fundamentally, what is wrong in my opinion is that there is identification with static things, when it should be clear that the world and human beings aren't static, but changing. So it seems better not to evaluate ourselves based on outcomes, and instead focus on the proces.

To put it in sports or poker terms, it's an example of results-oriented thinking. That is the kind of thinking that evaluates actions based on the results only. Because our actions alone don't fully determine the result, it is fallacious reasoning to take the result as the only criterium in the evaluation. You could've done everyting right, and still lose, or win even if you made mistakes. The correct method of evaluation would only take into account the information you had at the moment of the desicion to act one way or the other.

Existence precedes essence (it sounds better in the original French... l'existence précède l'essence).
A little Sartre tablet usually helps me with existential or societal Nausea, if not curing then at least making it tolerable. (burp!) :nerd:

What do you mean by that last part? I'm unsure.

Thanks for the insightful comment. I really like the Buddhist slant, though, that wasn't my intention in posting the OP. But, I guess it can make sense in this light.

Cool!