I'm not sure what this talk about luck and privilege has much to do with the core ideas of the article, which I took to be:
* look critically at your life's successes and your interests, discern what to prioritize
* being aware of societal abstractions and what you're "supposed" to do in life affecting your choices
* that your current "vision" of a proper life might not be the actual best fit for you, precisely because of the above abstractions
I thought these were generally fair points, if not rephrasings of common wisdom like "iterate more" and "your first idea isn't perfect" and "be wary of preconceptions". If you're in a bad material situation, I'm not sure that everything here suddenly doesn't apply?
Not saying that the author isn't privileged, that the path to success wasn't made easier by being able to travel, rent, and buy a farm in the footnotes. But again, the advice seems to be pretty universally put no matter how big or small your steps are.
Some people will go out of their way to live a life without principles. They will go so far as to discount any success as the result of luck or privilege or some other externality such that the only reasonable response must be that there is no point to doing anything but live a random life, day-by-day. To such individuals, no amount of planning or reflection can get you out of your situation or lead to a better life. If you have resources, you will have more. If you have none, you are doomed to fail. Or you can get lucky.
The initial comments on this post seem unreasonably negative. I did have to stop and process things a bit, but the underlying idea deeply resonates with me. This is quite the nugget:
> The context is smarter than you. It holds more nuance and information than you can fit in your head. Collaborate with it.
Sometimes, I feel like our mental models can form outside of a context (e.g., a classroom setting), and we are tempted to "force" the context to mold to the existing mental model. The problem, as the author describes, is the context tends to be far more complex than your rudimentary mental model.
Instead of forcing the mental model, allow the context to inform and grow it to be reasonable for the current situation. I find this particularly valuable in the field of platform engineering where this sort of behavior is prevalent. Every software team is different, and contexts can vary to a large degree. Instead of taking "the best platform approach" and trying to make your team conform to it, go "be" in the team and let that experience inform what the "best platform approach" is.
> Sometimes, I feel like our mental models can form outside of a context (e.g., a classroom setting), and we are tempted to "force" the context to mold to the existing mental model. The problem, as the author describes, is the context tends to be far more complex than your rudimentary mental model.
Right. A lot of common wisdom I hear seems to agree, like "professional work > university courses", "experience > reading theory", "iterative launches > the perfect launch", "just play/draw/code/practice more". The line about the context being smarter seems like an amalgamation of all of that, where direct experience with the "context" (the real world) yields a subconscious amount of depth you can't even imagine beforehand, much less with rigid external abstractions drilled into you.
Often times in areas I'm experienced in I will feel strongly that a certain decision is the way to go based on intuition or gut feel. I do think these intuitions are usually correct, but would be hard pressed to describe why. I even sometimes end up BSing something if I'm asked because I'm convinced there is a good reason, I just don't know exactly how to explain it right in the moment. I think the discussion here about the context does a lot to explain that phenomenon for me. The context is smarter than me, and the context collaborates with me without putting all the information in my head.
Of course, I could still benefit from practicing explaining the intuition...
It's a great set of advice, with a small caveat - it's very easy to speak about fit and ignore long-term consequences & externalities. It really hit me when they talked about relationships - "A relationship is healthy if it fits the personalities and needs of the people involved"
That is true-ish, but it's also true for e.g. codependent relationships. It doesn't really fit their needs, but when you're codependent, it's hard to see that it doesn't until it's really painful.
This is true for other areas as well - the industry has quite a number of people who found a job that "fit" them, and which then proceeds to grind them into dust because they don't notice it doesn't quite fit. (See the always popular "I just want to farm" exit)
The answer is kind-of buried in the article, but I wish it was called out more clearly. Yes, letting the context drive the fit is great, but it's crucial to have an unbiased set of eyes appraise the fit & the form.
The most common incarnation of that is probably either therapist or priest, but many other professions essentially fulfill the same job - "tell me what you see, because I'm not sure I see it completely"
It shines through in the article that the author did that, but if you're just embarking on this journey, it might help to hear it explicitly.
Reminds me of the advice "Find your passion and let it kill you" only lets flip it so you compromise endlessly first and just accept the life this process finds. Neither approach is truly ever followed by their proponents, it just rings humble and selfless and without responsibility. How agreeable.
Why would my vision for life be an error and the visions that come from interacting with others or "the context" be without error?
You get better at vision when you maintain higher standards for yourself, not when you loosen aims as failure approaches and look at your happiness from 30,000 feet in a daily journal. You do have to decide who you want to be at some point, always with limited information. But willing a great life for yourself is in no way like designing inanimate products to be released.
The idea of discovering a life that fits you rather than trying to predict it up front makes sense to me. In my life I think I've found most success, enjoyment and reward when I've followed my gut as opportunities arise. But I'm not really sure what the guiding reward signal is. Without up front choosing you want to be rich, high status, surrounded by a loving family, popular, for example, how do you make the near-term tactical choices well? Is it just "do what feels right"?
I see how this mental model is helpful for a lot of people.
I think the points he's making about the “unfolding” topic are universally great; at first glance, it looks like a straightforward idea, but we fail at keeping it in mind when we do the actual thinking. I've added a couple of his questions in that section to my journaling template.
I'm particularly intrigued by the idea of unbundling complex problems to gain deeper insights. This approach seems to offer a powerful way to challenge assumptions and find innovative solutions.
The title put me off a little. My initial reaction was "Well you're probably privileged, lucky, or both. And I bet you don't have a mental health problem."
However, the article makes some good points and I'm genuinely pleased to read about the author's successes in life and how he worked at it.
One thing that strikes me is that the author puts a lot of stock in talking to people and getting their perspectives, experiences and ideas. I think I need to do more of that!
This is great advice to people who DO have a job that takes up "all their time." Find ways to do things you enjoy; maybe eventually, it even leads to a job you might like more or that takes up less time so that you can continue pursuing the things you like.
Could you elaborate? I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I do need a source of income to pay my monthly costs, and I don't know how I can have one besides having a job or owning part of a business.
Not OP, but I imagine they're getting at the fact that you only need a job because of lifestyle choices you make, and if you drastically cut back on that, you could work far less than you currently do.
> if you drastically cut back on that, you could work far less than you currently do
I don't disagree with that per se (of course there are exceptions), but I don't see how that implies I'd only need a job because of my lifestyle choices. Even for a frugal life style where you only pay for groceries, Internet and rent, I'd still need a source of income. I'm assuming to healthcare either, as that's a luxury I've never had. :P
Nature made some choices about my chronic conditions, so I depend on access to healthcare. Healthcare is tied to my job (I live in the USA). Should I cut back on my life expectancy?
How much of that do you think was by following his "design" vs just luck and privilege falling into his lap? I think that's the point he's getting at, but I don't know his backstory and I don't see where you gleaned that from this post.
* look critically at your life's successes and your interests, discern what to prioritize
* being aware of societal abstractions and what you're "supposed" to do in life affecting your choices
* that your current "vision" of a proper life might not be the actual best fit for you, precisely because of the above abstractions
I thought these were generally fair points, if not rephrasings of common wisdom like "iterate more" and "your first idea isn't perfect" and "be wary of preconceptions". If you're in a bad material situation, I'm not sure that everything here suddenly doesn't apply?
Not saying that the author isn't privileged, that the path to success wasn't made easier by being able to travel, rent, and buy a farm in the footnotes. But again, the advice seems to be pretty universally put no matter how big or small your steps are.