TL;DR
Get wellness gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Tiny Buddha published Steve Hauptman’s personal essay on the limits of trying to control every part of life at once. Using a Rubik’s Cube metaphor and an account of an emergency-room visit, Hauptman describes learning to treat competing priorities as trade-offs rather than proof of failure.
Tiny Buddha has published an essay by psychotherapist Steve Hauptman about accepting that people cannot meet every competing demand at once. Drawing on choices involving work, family, rest and health, Hauptman argues that an imperfect balance need not mean failure—a perspective he says became tangible during a hospital visit prompted by a possible health warning.
Hauptman compares the challenge to solving a Rubik’s Cube: improving one side can leave another looking scrambled. He describes juggling client sessions, household chores, time with family, work on a book, social plans, exercise and leisure reading. The essay’s central point is that every “yes” includes a “no”, because time and attention are limited.
He calls the drive to make circumstances and other people conform to expectations an addiction to control, while presenting that phrase as his own way of describing a familiar human impulse—not as a clinical diagnosis. Hauptman identifies three paradoxes in his efforts to control: needing more control can leave a person feeling less in control; attempts to control others can prompt resistance; and gaining control in one area can mean giving it up elsewhere.
To illustrate the final point, he recounts a routine physical during which his doctor noticed a cardiogram “blip” that suggested a possible transient ischemic attack, or TIA. His doctor directed him to an emergency room. Hauptman says he felt fine but waited on a hospital gurney while tests were conducted, cancelled six client sessions and worried about his wife and the cost. He says he eventually took a nap, describing that response as a change from his earlier tendency to react with frustration, worry or anger.
How Trade-Offs Shape Daily Choices
The essay addresses a familiar pressure: treating work, relationships, health, household tasks and personal interests as if all can be maintained at full capacity at the same time. Hauptman’s account offers a personal framework for understanding why that expectation can produce self-blame when one priority takes time away from another.
His argument is not that difficult choices disappear, or that every trade-off is harmless. Rather, he says recognizing a choice’s cost can replace the belief that an untidy house, unfinished book or missed social plan proves a person has failed. That distinction may matter to readers trying to set priorities without expecting a perfect outcome across every part of life.
The emergency-room story gives the idea a concrete test: faced with waiting, cancelled appointments and uncertainty, Hauptman says he accepted the immediate situation enough to rest. The episode is an account of his experience, not evidence that acceptance changes medical outcomes or removes the need for care.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Rubik’s Cube Metaphor
Hauptman opens with a saying he attributes to Buddhist teacher Sylvia Boorstein: “Well, this isn’t what I want, but it’s what I got, so okay.” He contrasts that acceptance with his envy of a speed-cuber who could solve a cube in about a minute. For him, the puzzle represented the impossible wish to get every side of life into order simultaneously.
The essay connects that metaphor to examples of priorities displacing one another: a business executive who succeeds at work but becomes distant from family, or a parent whose focus on children leaves a partnership neglected. These are illustrations offered by Hauptman, not independently documented case studies. His stated professional background is as a licensed clinical social worker; the source also identifies him as author of Monkeytraps: Why We Try to Control Everything and How We Can Stop, published in 2015.
““Well, this isn’t what I want, but it’s what I got, so okay.””
— Steve Hauptman, quoting Sylvia Boorstein
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Essay Does Not Establish
The essay is a personal reflection, not a research report. It does not provide studies, data or clinical evidence establishing Hauptman’s three “paradoxes” as universal rules, and his use of “control addict” is not presented as a formal diagnosis. Readers should understand the claims as his interpretation of experience.
Hauptman says a cardiogram finding suggested a TIA, but the essay does not state the final test results, whether a TIA was diagnosed, what treatment followed or what happened after his hospital visit. It also gives no publication date for the essay. The source does not say whether the book’s revised edition, described as forthcoming in its author biography, has since appeared.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Choice to Accept Limits
The essay closes with Hauptman’s account of gradual change: he says he still wants to meet many competing goals, but is less likely to read an unfinished task as proof that he has failed. His immediate next step in the hospital was simply to wait while tests were run and rest when he could. The article does not announce a new program, study or follow-up publication.
For readers, the practical takeaway offered is to notice which priority a choice serves and what it leaves undone, rather than expecting every part of life to be in perfect order. Hauptman’s story leaves the medical outcome unresolved in the text; no further update is provided.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is the main point of Steve Hauptman’s essay?
Hauptman argues that people cannot meet every competing priority at once, and that choosing one thing usually means setting another aside. He says this need not automatically be treated as failure.
What does Hauptman mean by “control addiction”?
He uses the phrase for the impulse to make people, circumstances and outcomes match one’s expectations. In the essay, it is his personal description, not a formal medical diagnosis.
Why does the essay discuss a possible TIA?
Hauptman recounts a doctor noticing a cardiogram finding that suggested a possible TIA and directing him to the emergency room. He uses the wait and its disruptions to illustrate accepting a situation he could not control. The essay does not report the final medical results.
Does the essay provide evidence that accepting trade-offs improves health?
No. It presents Hauptman’s personal account and perspective, not research showing that acceptance changes health outcomes. He says he rested while waiting for tests; the essay does not claim that this affected his medical condition.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
