pull down to refresh
218 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b 17 Apr freebie \ on: Some thoughts on success mostly_harmless
I was reminded today that the first chapter of Mastery is The Life's Task and it touches on some of this stuff. I went looking around for interviews where he summarizes it best and he repeatedly recommended Frames of Mind by Howard Gardner. Anyway, you might be familiar with all of this but I like what he has to say on the subject.
Here's an interview with Huberman where he describes his view well (the link has it start at the part he goes into it).
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?
reply
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?