TL;DR
Get workout gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A Tiny Buddha essay by psychotherapist Steve Hauptman argues that people cannot keep every part of life in order at once: choices to focus on one priority leave less time or energy for another. Hauptman describes learning to see those tradeoffs as choices rather than proof of failure, while the essay offers personal reflection rather than new research or clinical guidance.
Psychotherapist Steve Hauptman argues in a Tiny Buddha essay that people cannot get every part of life right at the same time, and that recognizing the costs of competing priorities can reduce self-blame. The piece is a personal reflection, illustrated with examples from work, family life and a hospital visit; it does not report new research or a change in clinical guidance.
Hauptman compares life to a Rubik’s Cube: concentrating on one side can leave the others scrambled. He describes routine choices that compete for time and attention, including seeing clients or doing housework, spending time with family or writing a book, and working or resting. His central point is that a person cannot do everything at once, and that a choice to say yes to one thing usually means saying no to something else.
The essay identifies what Hauptman calls three paradoxes of trying to control life. He writes that needing more control can leave a person feeling less in control, and that efforts to control other people can lead to reciprocal attempts at control. His third paradox is that gaining control in one area can require giving it up in another. These are his framing and interpretation, not findings presented from a study.
To illustrate the cost of treating every tradeoff as failure, Hauptman describes a routine physical in which a cardiogram showed a blip that his doctor said could suggest a transient ischemic attack. He went to the emergency room, waited for tests and cancelled six client sessions. He says that, rather than reacting with frustration as he might have in the past, he took a nap while waiting. The source does not provide the test results or further medical details.
Seeing Tradeoffs Without Self-Blame
The essay speaks to a familiar tension: people often face competing demands on limited time and energy, yet may judge themselves for the task or goal they did not complete. Hauptman’s approach recasts an untidy home, an unfinished book or a missed social plan as possible consequences of a choice rather than automatic evidence of personal failure.
That distinction matters because it shifts the question from how to control every outcome to what a person is choosing to prioritize. The essay does not claim that accepting tradeoffs resolves difficult circumstances, nor does it offer a clinical treatment. Its contribution is a personal account of changing how one interprets ordinary compromises, including under stress.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Essay’s Control Metaphor
Hauptman says he has long thought of himself as someone who wants reality to conform to his needs and expectations. He uses “control” in that broad sense, rather than to mean simply being domineering. The essay links this desire to examples in which a person’s focus on one outcome may coincide with strain elsewhere, such as prioritizing work while relationships suffer.
The article is presented by Tiny Buddha as a first-person essay. Its author note identifies Hauptman as a licensed clinical social worker and the author of Monkeytraps: Why We Try to Control Everything and How We Can Stop, published in 2015, with a revised edition described as forthcoming. The source provides no date for that planned edition.
““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.
Limits of the Personal Account
The source does not give a publication date, disclose any supporting research, or establish that Hauptman’s observations apply equally to all readers. The claims about control are presented as his reflections, not as measured findings. It also does not say what the emergency-room tests showed after the cardiogram raised the possibility of a transient ischemic attack, so the medical episode’s outcome remains unknown.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
No Further Update Reported
The supplied Tiny Buddha article contains no announced follow-up, research release or next publication milestone. It describes Hauptman’s continuing effort to accept tradeoffs, but does not set out a schedule or formal next step. Readers seeking information about symptoms or a possible transient ischemic attack should rely on qualified medical professionals rather than treating the essay as medical advice.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is the essay’s main point?
Hauptman’s main point is that people cannot meet every competing demand at once. He argues that choosing one priority often means leaving another for later, and that this does not automatically mean a person has failed.
Who wrote the Tiny Buddha essay?
The essay was written by Steve Hauptman, LCSW. Tiny Buddha’s author note describes him as a psychotherapist and author of Monkeytraps: Why We Try to Control Everything and How We Can Stop.
Does the essay cite research proving its claims?
No research is cited in the supplied source. The piece is a first-person reflection that presents Hauptman’s views and personal examples, rather than a research report.
What happened during the hospital visit he describes?
Hauptman says a cardiogram during a routine physical showed a blip his doctor said could suggest a transient ischemic attack. He went to the emergency room and waited for tests, but the essay does not report the results or the eventual diagnosis.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
