100 sats \ 7 replies \ @elvismercury OP 17 Apr \ parent \ on: Some thoughts on success mostly_harmless
Thank you, these are great recs. I own the Mastery book but have only read the intro (this is sadly the dominant fate of most books I own) but this is a good reminder that it merits deeper engagement. Greene is a great synthesizer.
Fwiw, my major takeaway from the time I was engaged w/ the SDT and related models of motivation was: mastery of what? In other words, what is it that I am trying to be, that I can progress in my capability about? It introduced the disturbing (and interesting) idea that we have all mastered whatever it is that we are, by definition. So what is that? And is that the right thing?
It introduced the disturbing (and interesting) idea that we have all mastered whatever it is that we are, by definition.
That's a nice tautology, a thing that I normally like as it can show how different framings are identical, but I don't find it very motivating. As presented at least, it seems to miss that no one has mastered what they can (in the future) be.
So what is that?
Robert Greene implies its found by studying our childhoods, moments where our energy or excitement erupted during some mundane thing, revealing an inclination particular to us. He focuses on childhood because we tend to consciously collude with external influence as we mature. Meaning, when we're children, other people's expectations influence us but we don't yet alter our expectations of ourselves. He says you just go back to that trailhead and begin hiking.
This makes a lot of sense to me. You mostly look for where your energy is greatest and capture its wind in your sails over and over and over.
And is that the right thing?
Is this the right question? I feel like "what is that" is what matters. Figuring out "what is that" and doing that, assuming "that" isn't being a serial killer, is likely where you're most generative and that's the only "right," at a macro level, anyone should care about.
reply
Robert Greene implies its found by studying our childhoods, moments where our energy or excitement erupted during some mundane thing, revealing an inclination particular to us.
That seems like an important signal, for the reasons you say; but perhaps not the important signal. Society's expectations for you, and the fields of play it permits at varying degrees of friction, are not irrelevant -- self-sovereignty in the way that many bitcoiners talk about it is an illusion.
What you want is a really nice intersection btwn what your innate tendencies predispose you to, and what society affords. Unless part of your innate tendencies is swimming upstream and fighting pointless fights, which some people do seem to be motivated by.
Is this the right question? I feel like "what is that" is what matters.
I think it's a useful question. If who you happen to be is someone who sets great store by being the smartest one in the room (a role I suspect many of us here have inhabited before) then two principal fates are open to you:
a) curate the rooms you go in aggressively; or
b) feel like shit a decent amount of the time, depending on how smart you actually are
Both of those are Bad Outcomes, according to my value system; so if you've found that this is the answer to "what is that" for you, then "is this the right thing" will give you an answer it's important to attend to.
You mostly look for where your energy is greatest and capture its wind in your sails over and over and over.
Seems like you are excellent at this at this time in your life. Is that true? Was it always true?
reply
I'm operating under the impression that the problem statement here is "what's my purpose?" or "how do I fulfill my potential?" which might be off base. Also, forgive me, I get really passionate about this because people who are both smarter and more successful than me get hung up on these questions and it frustrates me more than almost anything. Either I'm confused, haven't answered these questions for myself, don't realize how difficult these questions are, and lack empathy or, as I suspect, these incredibly smart and successful people are preventing themselves from answering these questions by placing too many requirements on the answers.
Society's expectations for you, and the fields of play it permits at varying degrees of friction, are not irrelevant
Of course not, but it's beside the point and confuses the whole task by loading it with an unbearable burden. To me, indeed someone fond of illusory self-sovereignty, you couldn't design a better obstruction to answering "what is that." The expectations of you that society deserves to have are limited. If society were addressable (it isn't imo which is part of the problem), it should want to harvest the most good from you without regard for whether that takes the form of weaving incredible baskets or saving people from burning buildings. It should expect, at most, that it will fulfill its potential by you fulfilling yours alongside everyone else fulfilling theirs. Society doesn't deserve to expect the basket weaver to be a firefighter. How right is it, from society's point of view, to have miserable firefighters wishing they were basket weavers? How right is it for the firefighter to be miserable?
Anyway, I don't think you need to consider society's expectations directly. They are already part of any normal person. They will be baked into to your answers, aligned with "what is that," whether you want them to be or not. You will use "what is that" to society's aim because you're prosocial like most of us.
Seems like you are excellent at this at this time in your life. Is that true?
I'm at least under the illusion that it's true. It's certainly true on a basis relative to any other time in my life.
Was it always true?
No, which is why I get so fired up about this. I was led astray, then lost, and went through this process, more naively and less deliberately, a long time ago. It was extremely painful (like replacing my epidermis in full) and I felt like I was playing from behind for a long time, only to realize I was "ahead" on this question. If I had an advantage in answering this question, it was that no one, including society, had expectations of me. If society had a place to write, it would've written me off.
so if you've found that this is the answer to "what is that" for you
I might've gotten lost, but "this" is "being the smartest one in the room"?
"what is that" for you when you don't consider "is it right"?
reply
Society doesn't deserve to expect the basket weaver to be a firefighter. How right is it, from society's point of view, to have miserable firefighters wishing they were basket weavers? How right is it for the firefighter to be miserable?
I don't disagree with this as much as you think, I don't think. I agree that miserable firefighters (or miserable anything) are a bad thing, and people shouldn't be miserable if they have an alternative. What I was getting at is that it might be better to be a lawyer (just to pick a random thing) if that inherently gave you a satisfaction level of 7, vs a basket-weaver, if that gave you a SL of 8.5, bc the other aspects of being a lawyer, and the social legitimacy that that job confers, probably outweighs in aggregate the benefits from basket-weaving.
Put another way, my usage of "right" was mostly pragmatic -- you're not independent of the world, so fixating on the purity of your love of basket-weaving is likely to be empirically a bad idea, if you're measuring something like aggregate life satisfaction.
If I had an advantage in answering this question, it was that no one, including society, had expectations of me. If society had a place to write, it would've written me off.
I would love to hear more about this, if you felt like relating it, but understand if you wouldn't. My recollection of your bio is that you went to a good college and did well, and then got a good job and also did well. Was this after a decadent youth where you felt written off?
I might've gotten lost, but "this" is "being the smartest one in the room"?
Yeah. My experience is that a lot of people (maybe also myself) get trapped into being a certain person. They are successful at being that person; they're good at it; perhaps they're well-rewarded for it. But it's somehow wrong. That's what I'm poking at here -- mastering a way of Being isn't that predictive of a happy person (objectively measured) or a good life (guessing). The "smartest person" example is an archetype that I actually know -- they have made a niche, been successful at it. But I think it's a trap.
"what is that" for you when you don't consider "is it right"?
There's a question.
reply
I don't disagree with this as much as you think, I don't think.
I went hard on that point, but I take issue with even raising the question "is it right." Because, as much as a person thinks they can meter its influence, it's a mental sea monkey for nearly anyone and especially people who have high expectations of themselves. The people I'm talking about, all smarter and more successful than me, exhibit excessive concern about "is it right" and "what is the outcome." For smart prosocial people they will leverage "what is that" to do right and achieve a significant outcome regardless of all the "what is that" measuring they think is oh so rational.
The crux of the point I have to make is this. The feeling of finding one's purpose is mostly a matter of you respecting your own emotional wishes. It is a self-gratitude for choosing the most emotionally aligned task. Over rationalizing and quantizing these decisions is like telling everything you are to go fuck itself. No amount of societal righteousness or status or approval can heal the tear you create in your self by doing this.
I would love to hear more about this, if you felt like relating it, but understand if you wouldn't.
It's all so complain-y. Childhood turmoil -> flunking out of high school -> bankless, carless, small town grocery clerk, suicideating misery -> reading a lot -> have epiphany that I can be more -> go back to school for anything -> (re)discover an interest in computers and pursue it without concern for anything but the sense that it's "what is that" -> follow "what is that" forever.
But I think it's a trap.
I'm certain it is.
reply
I must ponder. Thank you.
reply