![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
posicScott D. Clary writes in Facebook -- https://www.facebook.com/scottdclarypage/posts/pfbid02VDUc2fxHCvHnXFRSHXcY53fxG2HmjkcHjFMfq9YDgQmeiVS6uvHB7ftFH5JXiipnl :
Most people think about legacy wrong. They think about being remembered. The more useful question is whether the people you affected directly went on to affect other people positively. That compounds in a way that being remembered doesn't. The impact outlasts the memory.
***
This is a good question, but there is one problem with it: these effects are not readily observable. What was the actual influence of anybody on anybody, what it actually changed and what it didn't change, is mostly unknowable; even more so in the second and further iterations (influence of the influenced). That's one reason why an insecure overachiever like me may prefer to rely on observable outputs like written books and papers.
Most people think about legacy wrong. They think about being remembered. The more useful question is whether the people you affected directly went on to affect other people positively. That compounds in a way that being remembered doesn't. The impact outlasts the memory.
***
This is a good question, but there is one problem with it: these effects are not readily observable. What was the actual influence of anybody on anybody, what it actually changed and what it didn't change, is mostly unknowable; even more so in the second and further iterations (influence of the influenced). That's one reason why an insecure overachiever like me may prefer to rely on observable outputs like written books and papers.
