Stoic Wellbeing
A show for people who are ready to radically transform their lives through the use of Stoicism, the Enneagram, and other personal growth resources. Mindset and momentum coach Sarah Mikutel shares actionable exercises, interviews and stories to help you feel more peaceful, enjoy happier relationships, and live a more smoothly flowing life. If you’re stuck in a transition point — you know WHAT you want to change and can’t figure out WHY you can’t move forward — this show is the roadmap you’ve been looking for.
Stoic Wellbeing
Why You'd Rather Lose Than Be Treated Unfairly
What do abandoned mansions in Bucharest have to do with dirty dishes and emotional resentment?
In this episode, I explore how our desire for fairness can lead us to self-sabotage — and how Stoic justice asks us to think beyond pride, punishment, and being right.
We’ll walk through a real-world example of decades-long property disputes, connect it to the Ultimatum Game in behavioral economics, and look at how these same dynamics show up in our everyday relationships — from family drama to who does the dishes.
This is an invitation to reflect on what you're holding onto, and whether it’s time to build something new — even without the apology or closure you thought you needed.
***
Hi! I’m your host, Sarah Mikutel, an American in England and fellow citizen of the world. A few things I love: Stoicism, great vegetarian tacos, and helping my coaching clients thrive in all areas of their lives.
Does the phrase “public speaking” make you feel a little sick…even if it’s just a team meeting or a group conversation?
I made something to help you.
Calm Your Nerves in 90 Seconds is a free anxiety-reduction toolkit with a guided meditation and journal to help you communicate with confidence.
Use it anytime your brain goes into overdrive and you need a reset.
https://sarahmikutel.com/reset
I'm walking around Bucharest as the sun sets. This Romanian city is filled with gorgeous, well-kept buildings, and it's also filled with sublime, decay, boarded up mansions heaving in on themselves, chipped paint and broken windows, nature reclaiming the land. Why, I wonder, are these places sitting here, abandoned? Surely there are people who want to return these places to their former glory or, at the very least, turn them into something else. I soon learn that these places have been in litigation for years, and the reason surprises me.
Speaker 1:The communist regime, which lasted from 1945 to 1989 in Romania. They abolished private property, so they kicked wealthy people out of their homes, or they might have allowed them to rent a room in the property that they used to own. Then the state split up the rest of the home and rented rooms out to peasants, whom they moved into the city to work in the factories as the country tried to industrialize itself. After the dictator Nikolai Ceausescu was executed in 1989, people had the right to claim back their property, but here's where things get messy. The original owners of a property had a right to it, but so did the renters who lived there. The new government gave them the option to buy their rentals at very low prices, and so tens of thousands of lawsuits ensued. Meanwhile, people did not invest in maintaining the property while it was in dispute, and often nobody's living there. Of course, it's more complicated than this. Some properties were given back to the people who no longer lived in the country, so it sat empty. For other properties, an owner or heir couldn't be found, but people didn't want to purchase the property, because what if somebody comes back and claims it? Or someone gets the legal right to a property that can't afford to renovate it according to historical preservation standards. So they are just waiting for the building to collapse so they can build something new. And as I'm walking around looking at these ghostly palaces, I think about those money experiments that expose how our emotions, rather than logic, guide our thoughts and feelings and actions.
Speaker 1:In 1982, while Ceausescu made plans to tear down Bucharest's historic neighborhoods so he could build his North Korean-inspired Palace of the People, German economist Werner Guth published a paper that turned how we think about human behavior on its head. Economists had previously theorized that human beings acted in their best interests, which seems really weird if you have spent any time amongst humanity. But maybe they were stuck in their ivory towers. In Guth's ultimatum bargaining game, he demonstrated how often we go against our own interests if we perceive something to be unjust.
Speaker 1:In what is commonly referred to today as the ultimatum game, player A gets $10, for example, to divide between him and player B, and player B's role is to accept or reject the offer. And if he rejects, both players get nothing. And if he accepts, both players get to keep whatever was offered. So let's say that player A offers player B $1 and player A plans to pocket $9 for himself. Player B rejects this as a bad deal for himself. That doesn't seem fair. He would only get 10%, but when he rejects now, they both have $0. Only get 10%, but when he rejects now, they both have $0. Player B harmed himself financially because he felt Player A was being unjust.
Speaker 1:Now that I know about this game, I'm more conscious of making wise decisions, and yet the rational choice can feel unjust. Logically, this knowledge that we have about the ultimatum game should make it easy for us to make small decisions, as easy as it is to make large ones. What is in my best interest? What's in the best interest of the other person or people? What is it that I actually want? Is there a way for both of us to get what we want.
Speaker 1:What if what you want is to live in the family home the Communist Party evicted your grandparents from? Hypothetically, let's say, one of the rooms is available. You could live there and share the building with people who purchase their rentals. But that doesn't seem fair to you. You'd be getting what you said you wanted to live in the family home in Bucharest. But that's not what you want anymore. Your priorities have changed. You don't want to just live there, you want it all. Or maybe what you always really wanted was justice for what was done to your family, for the hunger and blackouts brought on by austerity during communism, for the loss of dignity and the theft of livelihoods, for the fear and the frustration, for the intense surveillance and the forced silence Somebody has to pay, even though the biggest culprit died by firing squad on Christmas Day 1989. These vendettas are understandable. They're not reasonable. In the name of justice, no one is winning. With these buildings, player A and Player B continue to lose as the floorboards rot and grass grows through the windowsills of these empty buildings.
Speaker 1:We all play these games, with ourselves and with others. We get frustrated when other people seem to get special treatment, when we feel cheated when it seems like we are working harder or we are caring more. We get mad when people don't pull their weight, famously when they leave laundry out or dirty dishes lying around. But it's not really about the dishes, it's about what the mess represents. We might be mad at that incident or pattern of incidents, but what really upsets us is the feeling we've been disrespected, taken advantage of, unloved. We are thinking with our emotions here. Rationally, if we want a clean house, we'd put away the laundry and do the dishes ourselves. But our reaction isn't about the task, it's about what feels unfair, what feels unjust. So we play emotional games where nobody wins.
Speaker 1:Life is not fair sometimes, and reacting emotionally often feels easier in the short term than living by our values. But what is at stake in the long term? If my grandparents' home was taken from them, I would be tempted to fight for it in their honor. And yet nothing is that simple. What if they died decades ago and I now live in another country with no plans to return? Would I sue the current government? Or is another way to honor them? To allow families to live in their home? Is my goal to honor or to punish, and sometimes it can be both.
Speaker 1:When we hear the word justice, we often picture courtrooms or period dramas with swords. But for the Stoics, justice wasn't about punishment or getting what you deserve. It's about living well with other people, choosing fairness, wisdom and compassion over ego and pride. Justice is a virtue. It's not a vendetta. It's not cruel or a one-sided retribution. It's the cultivation of a world in which everyone can live with dignity. Even when the system is a mess, we can still choose fairness. We can act with kindness and consider the whole. And this doesn't mean giving up your rights. It does mean thinking beyond yourself. We say we want fairness, but years pass, paperwork piles up, keys never turn in locks, ferns grow in the stairwells decades.
Speaker 1:If player A and player B both lose, is that a victory? Sometimes we're not just holding on to a home, we're holding on to a story, one in which we were wronged, where someone else must make it right before we move on. And things get messy this way because there are always multiple stories. The tenant who lived in those walls has a story, and so does the heir, who grew up hearing about what was taken. Stoicism would ask both of them to zoom out and consider the other perspective. What would justice look like if I were in their place? As I sip my cappuccino outside a cafe shaded by trees, I think of how modern and convenient this city has become. You can book a train online, use contactless payments everywhere, order an Uber on your phone. It's so much more convenient than a lot of places I've visited in the world Convenient and modern At the same time.
Speaker 1:Across Bucharest, vacant buildings remain frozen in time, waiting for a decision about who deserves to be there. These buildings can't move forward because they're still tied to a past that hasn't been released. What parts of your life are like that? What conversation are you not having because you're waiting for someone else to go first? What dream, relationship or change feels blocked for you because you're hanging on to something from the past? What if you thought about letting go, not as surrender, but as repair and growth? Even without the closure you hoped for? It's choosing to build again. That's all for now. I'm Sarah Moikitel and I thank you for listening. Have a beautiful week, wherever you are.