When it comes to getting what we want out of life, there are three kinds of people. There are those who know what they need to do, and they do it. There are also those who know what they need to do, but for whatever reason, they can't muster the discipline to do it. And then there are those who are too ignorant to know what to do. I would argue that the second group constitutes the lion's share of people.

It is easy to imagine ourselves enjoying the achievement of our brightest aspirations. This is the stuff of daydreams. What we do with our daydreams is what makes all the difference. Some folks inherently feel that their dreams are achieveable. If they are the type to take responsibility for their future, they expand the scope of their musings to include a consideration of the actions required to get where they want to go. They decide if their dreams are worth it and act accordingly. It is no surprise that these are the achievers.

Those who do not achieve their daydreams either cannot conceive of the actions required of them, or they cannot overcome the inertia associated with keeping things as they are. Indeed, non-achievement is most often an inertia problem, and it is also habit forming. The more time that transpires between the realization of goals through disciplined effort, the harder it is to accomplish anything. Some people, many people, go years without setting a goal and working on it until they achieve it. I suspect these patterns are installed early in life.

As a new father, I spend a lot of time observing parents in public with their children. I see lots of very nurturing parents, some too much so. But I also see parents who treat their children as if they are nuisances. It is hard to imagine these people propping their young children up and encouraging them to try to new things. It's hard to imagine them teaching their kids how to project themselves into the future and figure out how to get what they want. Pushing their children would only add more trouble to the already annoying situation, would it not? So maybe these are the kids who take life as it comes. Maybe in doing so, they eliminate the need for proactivity entirely. They can simply react to the pressures of life as they come. As students, they can do just enough to get by, with their focus exclusively on overcoming immediate hurdles, without any consideration for the merits of getting over them. When they graduate, they get jobs because they need money today. Sadly, without the fresh experience of accomplishment, their daydreams stay just that, dreams. But this is not necessarily a bad news story.

Just as with any skill that must be learned, it is best to start small and work upwards. Those who find themselves in a pattern of non-achievement truly can turn things around. People do it all the time. They need only choose some small, easily achieveable goals, and commit to achieving them. For example, one who has, for too long, led a sedentary existence can decide to do 30 push-ups a day for 30 days. This will require that person to work up to doing 30 push-ups and then have the discipline to do them every day for the following month. We're talking about less than 60 seconds of time every day. It's simple and the rewards are immense.

The obvious benefit is the good feeling that comes from feeling strong. But the more powerful benefit is the sense of accomplishment that comes from setting a goal and achieveing it. It takes work on a daily basis. It takes the willingness to overcome the inertia of daily life, and it feels really good. This too is habit forming. Immediately apparent is the idea that all that stands between today and the realization of one's daydreams is the execution of specific, knowable actions. However, given these folks' history of non-achievement, it must be expected that the path will consist mostly of baby steps. But, hey, it's worth it.

I call attention to these vast generalities not to denegrate anyone, but to lay out a fix for what I see as a very fixable but pervasive problem. To identify the problem is an act of assessment, not judgement. There's a big difference. To assess is to lay the issue on the table objectively. To judge is to attach negative or positive value upon particular character traits. The latter is a mistake, if for no other reason than the unreliability of incomplete information.

If we had access to a person's entire history and a view into all of his or her experiences, we might be in a position to offer credible value-based criticisms of that person and how he or she lives life. But we do not. Every person is different, and what we see is never more than half the story. Basically, we don't have enough information to draw meaningful conclusions about individuals. Therefore, the only one who can judge a person is that person, and if that individual is smart, he or she will use as many objective assessments as possible to get it done right. Maybe this one will help.

I'm sure we all know people who are afflicted with what is often called "The Napolean Syndrome." This is a condition where a poor soul's consciousness is regularly occupied with the suspicion that his height is at the front of the minds of his contemporaries. They are not seeing him for his personality or his talents. They only see his height. He, therefore, compensates by being a jack-ass. The cruel irony in this situation is what I would call an axiom in human discourse - insecurity is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Being short is just one example of not measuring up (forgive the pun) to what is generally held to be the standard in human appearance. If we let our shortcomings (there I go again) get to us, we can become desperately insecure. But it doesn't have to be that way. Here are three facts that can be particularly useful in these situations.

1. We live in a world in which populations routinely express preferences for attractive people. Corporations spend billions of dollars every year hiring individuals to represent their products. They pay more for attractive people than do for unattractive people. This is not because they have some bias against ordinary-looking people. It is simply a reflection of the fact that the consumers of their ads will pay more attention to a beautiful girl than they will to homely one.

2. The definition of attractive, at least in a general sense, is something that is inherently agreed upon by the majority. If asked to choose the more attractive of the following, a majority (if chosen randomly from society) will choose the former - tall versus short, lean versus fat, full hair versus a bald head, white teeth versus yellow teeth, and symmetrical features versus asymmetrical features.

3. You can't judge a book by its cover. Appearance does not have anything to do with value as a person. Yes, differing appearances elicit differing reactions from people (see 1 and 2), however this is a reflection on the reactor not the reactee.

So, what to do? The fix is simple. We must all do our best to come to grips with where we stand on the appearance continuum. If I'm a flabby, snaggle-toothed, bald man, I must accept that I'm not likely to get hired to be a spokesmodel. But so what? We must accept that being attractive ostensibly affords individuals a leg up in the game of life. (I say ostensibly because the perks of being a looker don't always pan out the way one may think they will.) The advantages are no different than the advantages that come from being born smart or rich or musically talented. The fact is that all men (and women) are not created equal. Some emerge from the womb well ahead of others, but far from being something that should be lamented, this is something that must be faced head-on, and the sooner the better.

Appearance-based insecurity is very sad. I suspect that most of us have been there at some time or another. The best of us, however, recognize that our insecurity is irrational and is entirely unproductive. It must be replaced with a new value system, one that is based upon ethics. Being a good person trumps looks every time. On a more practical note, it's easy to find examples of people who are not particularly attractive but who manage to cast their appearance aside to succeed in life. They focus on their strengths and their talents, knowing that they can easily exceed whatever leg up a pretty face may have provided. Furthermore, they categorically reject people who insist upon placing inappropriate emphasis on appearance. In doing so, these people overcome one of the most deleterious of genetic influences that pervade our society.

This is genetic, you know. The universally agreed upon standards for beauty are easily traced to biological notions of fitness. It isn't a stretch to suppose that our minds are imbued with genetically-driven tendencies to gravitate toward attractive people. Once again, however, the time has come for humans to recognize when their genes are steering them in the wrong direction. This is a prime example.

So, to the Napoleans of the world, I'd say this - your height is only an issue for you, unless you insist on making it an issue for me. If you continue to doubt your value in my presence, eventually I'll join you. Your insecurity will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, do us all a favor and figure out what makes you valuable as a person. Then trade on that and leave your height out of it. It's that simple.