This is profoundly true, and the corollary is: beware of titles.
From project manager at some company to CEO of some megacorp: there have been, there are and there will be others just like that. But if you're you, defined only by your name (or your existence, without a name), then there is no one else, there can be no one else, because there is only one you in the whole universe.
On the contrary, this is profoundly bullshit.
Firstly, anyone arriving at a "life's goal" via what a blogger says should be their life's goal is not being "authentically them".
Secondly, why does a broader, less likely mix of talents and experiences make you more "you"? It doesn't. Just because you've become more unique does not make you more "you-ish".
> why does a broader, less likely mix of talents and experiences make you more "you"?
Because it's highly improbable that any one person's natural mix of talents and experiences would be narrow and similar to everyone else's.
On one hand, you say that "you are your experiences therefore you're youness is absolute even if you're living out the instructions of a blogger"
And then on the next hand you seem to imply that being less similar to others makes you more you, which besides being without basis, contradicts the banal "you're you therefore you're you" of your first point.
You can't have it both ways.
> Because it's highly improbable that any one person's natural mix of talents and experiences would be narrow and similar to everyone else's.
For those of us having trouble, can you elaborate on how that isn't described by "you seem to imply that being less similar to others makes you more you"?
Your answer there is directly at odds with saying that allowing yourself to be influenced by a blogger spewing mass-market pop-philosophy doesn't make the result less authentic.
The two original questions I answered are intrinsically linked. If your answers to the two are contradictory, then there's a fundamental integrity problem with the aforementioned pop-philosophy.
This is different from the claim that people naturally have a unique set of traits, experiences, and desires, and you would expect people who have successfully self-actualised to express that uniqueness.
Also reminds me of the social media trend for “don’t let them predict your next move”
you should build your uniqueness to help humanity and not stand out because you like to shine over the others
Your life's goal should not be dictated by Substack philosophers.
> Here is what you gain with your most improbable life:
> The authentic you. Your particular mix of talents, native abilities, personal inclinations, genetic limits, life experiences, and ambitious desires points to a mixture that is distinctly unique – if it is allowed to blossom. The further you move in that direction, the more you-like you become.
The West's obsession with "self-help" is built on convincing individuals that they are special but not living up to their special-ness. It then demands they do things to realize their special-ness.
The premise is that realization, fulfillment and happiness are only accessible if you do things you're not naturally inclined to do. Which begs the question: are you being the "authentic you" if you are following a path laid out by someone else?
> Finally, the less predictable you are, the less likely you are to be replaced by AIs. Machines are efficient, and they are powered by the predictable. Current LLMs are trained to generate the most predictable solution. So far they are not very good at duplicating what a creative, one-of-a-kind improbable human can produce. To distance yourself from the machines, aim to be as improbable as you can be.
Tell this to all the creatives who are being disrupted by AI that has, in many cases, been trained on their content.
> Your path, your character, your life, should be the most unlikely, the most unexpected, the least predictable version you can make.
Now, I ask you, is that really what I want from my kid's school bus driver?
One must develop one's own unique offering. Don't let the world trap you in its box.
I came across a bus driver today that told me he owned a juice bar on the side, and invited me to visit. I thought this was most unexpected. This didn't make him a bad driver. His driving was fine. The point is that even a bus driver can live up to the author's ideal.
Damn.
Sadly people are fulfilling the very probable dilettante stereotype of acting like pretentious crap actually has meaning.
> I'm not sure how someone could even come to the conclusion that living an improbable life = swerving into oncoming traffic, but here we are.
Did you actually read the fucking sentence and think about it?
It doesn't have to be swerving into traffic. It could just be not showing up on time to get the kids to school. It could be sexual assault of a minor.
In general, a good life involves showing up for people and supporting them. If you do that well, people come to expect it, and then...
Well, guess what? In a huge, important (to others!) part of your life, you become rather predictable.
Yes, I thought about it instead of just taking it literally and equating it with acting randomly or without purpose.
Why?
Go forth and do something improbable!
You do a huge disservice to the author. He mentions much more than that, just in that one sentence.
Again:
> Your path, your character, your life, should be the most unlikely, the most unexpected, the least predictable version you can make.
Why, if you're a nice guy, you should become a serial killer!
> I came across a bus driver today that told me he owned a juice bar on the side, and invited me to visit. I thought this was most unexpected.
You must live a sheltered life. Bus drivers were doing serious side hustles before there was even a name for those.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
And as for your comment:
> you should become a serial killer!
Please not preach violence on this site, whether intended or not.
> you should become a serial killer!
The most charitable of those, in terms of evaluation of the capacity of someone to learn to stop doing that, involves bad faith.
Most of the rest involve some sort of cognition or psychological issue.
If a stranger spontaneous brings up they run a "juice shop" and "invites" you to visit, 99 time out of 100 it's a front for an MLM.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-a...
https://www.eater.com/22958985/loaded-teas-herbalife-mlm-sil...
The article is basically just an argument for one method towards achieving self-actualizition, the process of fulfilling one's unique potential and becoming the most authentic version of oneself. It reminds me a bit of Walt Whitmans's "Song of Myself" in which he writes
> The past and present wilt--I have fill'd them, emptied them. And proceed to fill my next fold of the future.
> Listener up there! what have you to confide to me? Look in my face while I snuff the sidle of evening, (Talk honestly, no one else hears you, and I stay only a minute longer.)
> Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Be improbable! Contradict yourself! Be complicated! Be shocking! Live your life, ya know.
Where did I diminish individualism? The point I made was that, perhaps, you don't need someone else telling you that you're not being yourself and not living up to your potential, and then offering you a path you weren't naturally inclined to take to get to where they tell you you're supposed to be.
> The article is basically just an argument for one method towards achieving self-actualizition, the process of fulfilling one's unique potential and becoming the most authentic version of oneself.
And this is a very Western concept that doesn't resonate with me. I don't believe that the average person needs to be obsessed with fulfilling their potential and becoming "authentic", especially to the point where they rely on the advice of random people who are eager to tell them they're not fulfilling their potential and being "authentic".
To quote George Carlin:
> If you're looking for self-help, why would you read a book written by somebody else? That's not self-help, that's help. There's no such thing as self-help. If you did it yourself you didn't need help.
Who is doing that?
The average person probably doesn't need to be "obsessed" with self-actualisation or authenticity, but that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile goal. People don't need to be "obsessed" with eating healthy, but they should at least consider it.
Carlin's quote is cute but just a debate about semantics. Who cares what they're called. People learn from books, they learn from other peoples experiences, and they can use that learning to help themselves. How is that not valid?
The author of the post:
> Your life’s goal should be to become the most improbable person you can be. Your path, your character, your life, should be the most unlikely, the most unexpected, the least predictable version you can make. Improbable lives have fewer competitors, more unique rewards, and are harder to replace with AIs, since AIs run on the predictable.
> You can align yourself with this grand arc moving from the expected to the unexpected and aim to become the most improbable person you can be.
And so on.
From the very first sentence, the author is telling you what you should be and do. There is nothing in the post that asks the question of what the reader actually wants to be and do.
What if I want to be a part of a community, meet someone I can build a life with, raise a family, and have a job that allows me to support my family and engage in simple activities I enjoy?
How does someone telling me I should become "the most improbable person" I can be help me? How does minimizing my "competitors", obtaining "unique rewards" and trying to make myself AI-proof align to building community, finding a compatible partner, raising happy children, and finding work that supports the life I want to live?
> People don't need to be "obsessed" with eating healthy, but they should at least consider it.
Many people do eat healthy without buying a bookshelf full of books about how to eat a healthy diet.
> People learn from books, they learn from other peoples experiences, and they can use that learning to help themselves.
There is a difference between learning from other people's experiences where their experiences resonate with you and seeking out advice from people who are trying to sell you on a life they say you should have.
When I read others works, I am still doing my own take on it. It is my interpretation and application of the ideas.
Individualism in the west pretends to value uniqueness, but in practice it values belonging to sollte specific subgroup of consumers and avoiding solidarity with your fellow workers.
I think it's as smart as it sounds.
It is a humbling view. But there can still be an authentic "you" despite your circumstances. You can be forced to fight in a war you don't want to, but you can always run away and take a chance. Living authentically doesn't mean you are not bound by laws of the universe and of soceity but rather what you do despite that. Ultimately "you" will be inspired by everyone around you or value systems you engaged with but that doesn't strip away your individuality inherently.
Kind of touches on what Camus and Sarte mean to live your life in good faith.
Not all of us were believed we had to be a specific thing handed to us, some of us were born natural absurdists and figured it out as we went along.
Not really, no.
The actual realization is that other people in the past walked paths of which segments yours will share. A lot of stuff is just repetition upon repetition.
The way you phrase it however makes it sound like it's actually predetermined and that there is nothing new to discover, which couldn't be further from the truth, but probably helps as a coping mechanism for existing within the corporate world.
In fact, I'd argue it's inevitable. A deterministic metaphysic dictates that you must come to the conclusion that it simply doesn't matter how you interpret things, and therefore you will eventually, accidentally, trivially choose to interpret yourself in a non-nihilistic way, thus breaking the trap and allowing yourself a compatible sense of self-determination, despite being capable of understanding the untruth of it.
From your response, I see two takeaways: don't try to be creative because this only helps AI, and don't be spontaneous because the society wouldn't want you to. Is that it, or is there more? To be clear, I'm not trying to be overly snarky, but we don't get the option of doing nothing. If you don't like what this person is selling, what's your trick?
How do we know when we "are [...] being the "authentic you"" when so much of our early lives have been conditioned by our environment if we never challenge that by looking for other ways; be that through exploring western "self-help", Chinese philosophy, or both (and others).
Maybe it's through that action, the West's obsession with "self-help" that demands they do things to realize their special-ness, that allows them to actually discover the way, or non action, or their way. To say that another persons self-cultivation, or development, journey is the wrong way and that what is best for them is to do nothing is a mirror of the thing you disparage.
That's the whole point. In fact, if you're trying too hard to achieve 無為, you defeat the purpose.
Not really. I'd use the analogy of breathing. Imagine you're convinced that you need to breathe properly, so you consciously obsess over each breath (congratulations: you are now breathing manually). Then someone comes along and says "you know, you can just breathe without thinking about doing it right."
Is letting go of that manual breathing and just breathing without thinking about it following a path laid out by someone else?
truly authentic creativity and spontaneity would leave room for conformity if that's what made you happiest in the moment, because why should the fact that everyone else also does something prevent it from being a worthwhile thing for you personally to do?
What gives you an unique perspective and your own voice can be sticking to your thing for a long time and exploring your exact path more deeply than anyone else has. You don't need to take a million random stabs to become "improbable", and there's no reason that should lead to anything authentic.
Dictate? The only expectation is readers consider ideas.
You made some good points about "self-help". I don't fully agree, but you gave me something to think about.
The essay struck me very directly. I have made unusual career choices, and beyond or because of that, life has changed in unimagined ways every five years of my adult life. Improbable paths to improbable destinations. I do feel like it has left me in a unique position, amidst all the upheavals.
As someone that’s recently turned 60, your last paragraph resonates intensely. I am so, so far from the life I predicted for myself at age 25.
The first sentence of the article is "Your life’s goal should be to become the most improbable person you can be."
It is literally telling you what you should do.
The essay makes a case for one way to look at things. Stating it as an absolute makes it easier to describe. It would be cumbersome and unreadable if it was a form treatise. This is extremely common.
As far as agreement, there are many ways to see the world. Few are right, none are complete, but many are useful. Being able to hold many viewpoints, without needing them to be right or wrong, or even consistent, is the beginning of efficiently acquired and scalable wisdom.
The idea that unique experiences can results in unique value obviously has some merit. We have probably all implicitly applied this rule in part, when making decisions or in our perceptions. The essay makes it explicit, clearer.
I will refrain from making any "should" recommendations here.
Personally, if the author's intention was what you suggest, I would argue this kind of writing is "lazy" for lack of a better word. Words have specific meanings, and they matter. The most simple (and I would argue proper) understanding of "your life’s goal should be to become the most improbable person you can be" is the plain text reading: the author is offering very specific advice which he follows with an argument for why it is good advice. In other words, he really means your life’s goal should be to become the most improbable person you can be as he stated.
> Being able to hold many viewpoints, without needing them to be right or wrong, or even consistent, is the beginning of efficiently acquired and scalable wisdom.
One can obviously consider multiple viewpoints and choose whether to embrace them or not. But in my opinion, wisdom comes from first-hand experience accumulated over a lifetime. It is not something that is "efficiently acquired", nor is it inherently "scalable."
Knowledge, on the other hand, can be efficiently acquired and scaled. But it is not always easily applied.
Wisdom often has unexpectedly wide application, and so is more multiplicative than it is simply additive.
Reality is never contradictory, but it is complex. The seeming contradictions in models are because models capture different subsets of reality, not because they are wrong.
Yes, we get wisdom from direct experience.
But also, many of us acquire even more from reading, conversing, observing. Life gives us one line of direct experience, but tens of thousands of insightful people sharing theirs.
Seeing the sense in other peoples viewpoints, adds value. Getting caught up in wording styles that other's don't have any trouble with, is not what I would call a skill. And seeing coercion, where someone put some effort into communicating and interesting idea, is not shedding light on anything.
My opinion is that telling people "your goal in life should be..." is an aggressive form of advice-giving. I believe that the plain text wording of the statement speaks for itself. You're free to disagree.
I don't know why you feel the need to try to put me down for my opinion and go so far as to speak for everyone else by suggesting this is a "wording style that other's [sic] don't have any trouble with." How do you know what everyone else who reads this thinks?
I do find your approach to this conversation ironic given your repeated comments about the value of engaging with differing viewpoints.
I have not criticized any of your substantive views.
Only your unfair and unreasoned criticism of the essay writer's motives. Apparently due to unfamiliarity with normal language use.
They were not trying to dictate anything.
I also made the positive (non-critiquing) point that viewpoints are valuable, even when they don't match our situations at any given moment. They are rarely "right" or "wrong", in the way facts are.
A great deal of wisdom is accumulating many views that let us "see" different things in different ways.
The complete opposite view (i guess non western since you said it was western) would be to do nothing everyday and just be content and happy without ever doing anything to change your life. That is obviously not a great way to experience life as well.
Laslty, them saying you being unique will keep you save from AI replacement is pretty stupid genuinely and cannot be defended. It's a bit too hopefuly to think people deciding on layoffs and automation with AI give a single fuck about how special or interesting you care. You think Larry Ellison cares?
So you’re suggesting that some philosophers/ideas are “special” while random writers on Substack are not. Immediately contradicts the spirit of your next criticism:
> The West's obsession with "self-help" is built on convincing individuals that they are special but not living up to their special-ness … Which begs the question: are you being the "authentic you" if you are following a path laid out by someone else?
So YOU are special after all? “Someone else on Substack” is wrong but I am right? Why should I listen to you?
The parent comment belongs on Reddit, really.
No, it's not.
> It does not work to criticize someone's authority...
The article is patronizingly prescriptive.
The comment is a warning that the article is patronizingly prescriptive.
> The parent comment belongs on Reddit, really.
So much projection here.
And...
Did you really just create your account right now because this comment was stuck in your craw?
Ironically enough I found the avant garde effort of many modernist artists, architects and such very samey. Like the only way someone could receive any recognition is not by doing something well but only by doing something new. The newness would be forced sometimes for the sake of it and then countless thousands of people would try to do that something new in a similar way and recognising and being able to explain those things would kind of an ingroup thing..
At various points when I did some art schooling and later encoutered professors from the arts who should have been lecturing mostly about UI design and whatnot but clearly didn't want to be doing that type of stuff ended up just giving us some more art schooling.....it too felt like very forced dogma.
> Please do not misunderstand. We had been mothers, fathers. Had been husbands of many years, men of import, who had come here, that first day, accompanied by crowds so vast and sorrowful that, surging forward to hear the oration, they had damaged fences beyond repair. Had been young wives, diverted here during childbirth, our gentle qualities stripped from us by the naked pain of that circumstance, who left behind husbands so enamored of us, so tormented by the horror of those last moments (the notion that we had gone down that awful black hole pain-sundered from ourselves) that they had never loved again. Had been bulky men, quietly content, who, in our first youth, had come to grasp our own unremarkableness and had, cheerfully (as if bemusedly accepting a heavy burden), shifted our life’s focus; if we would not be great, we would be useful; would be rich, and kind, and thereby able to effect good: smiling, hands in pockets, watching the world we had subtly improved walking past (this empty dowry filled; that education secretly funded). Had been affable, joking servants, of whom our masters had grown fond for the cheering words we managed as they launched forth on days full of import. Had been grandmothers, tolerant and frank, recipients of certain dark secrets,who, by the quality of their unjudging listening, granted tacit forgiveness, and thus let in the sun. What I mean to say is, we had been considerable. Had been loved. Not lonely, not lost, not freakish, but wise, each in his or her own way. Our departures caused pain. Those who had loved us sat upon their beds, heads in hand; lowered their faces to tabletops, making animal noises. We had been loved, I say, and remembering us, even many years later, people would smile, briefly gladdened at the memory.
Growing up in a hyper-competitive society, I feel like I’ve spent my whole life constantly comparing myself to those around me, or even to complete strangers just to survive. Because of that, up until now, I think I’ve only ever been an incomplete version of 'me.' Thank you for sharing such a powerful piece.
It's practically a trope that taking the common, average path in life is not for everyone. If I wrote an article suggesting that not everyone will achieve self-actualisation by going to university at 18, getting a degree, entering the work force, buying a house, getting married, having kids, and retiring at 65, nobody would bat an eye. The author is basically making this argument in a slightly novel way. Living your life by choosing the average of all decisions will, for a lot of people, lead to a boring and meaningless life. I reckon for most people it would be substandard. Instead, do things which are not common or average or expected of you. It's advice that's practically as old as time, packaged up in a slightly different way.
No. Well, maybe. You'd have to ask someone who uses them.
> It's practically a trope that taking the common, average path in life is not for everyone.
Exactly. It's a tired trope, and gussying it up with pontifications about the utility of personal stochastic processes, after a detour into the big bang and entropy, doesn't make it any better.
> If I wrote an article suggesting that not everyone will achieve self-actualisation by going to university at 18, getting a degree, entering the work force, buying a house, getting married, having kids, and retiring at 65, nobody would bat an eye.
And nobody would submit it to HN, either.
> The author is basically making this argument in a slightly novel way.
No. The article is tedious, and, as has already been pointed out, prescriptive rather than permissive.
More seriously, I don't see how "improbable" is what you should maximize. If you come from a certain background, ending up in prison as a murderer may be more improbable than countless good lives you could lead.
At one point in my life I came to an epiphany on this topic. Everybody's life is improbable. Literally everybody, all the time, without any effort.
Through the lens of this I saw myself as being the type of person who looks at things in life through averages, sizing up what's likely, and I realized that in my own story there were a lot of very improbable occurrences. Even if we understand statistics, we shouldn't let our knowledge of what's likely or most common get in the way of appreciation this uniqueness, or cloud our view of it. I took this observation to mean to be less judgemental, less the type to want to size something up and put it in a statistical bucket.
Still a simplification, but has made the "illusion of a normie" clearer to me.
https://austraffic.com.au/aba/us-air-force-finds-averages-ca...
Edit: the report itself:
THE "AVERAGE MAN"?
Gilbert S. Daniels, December 1952
The person who dies in a skydiving accident at 35 can have lived more than the person who passes away quietly at 95 but never took any risks. It's still tragic, but I think you can celebrate someone who lived life to the fullest, in a way that you can't if they just let themselves rot away with dementia.
You either peak and start to decline at some time in your life, or you continuously go up, never peaking before your death.
When people say "the alternative is death" it's a class 2 or class 3 death. But it matters which one it is.
Why would you not do at 63 what you would do at 23?
You’re sitting in a foldable chair, sipping your tea, waiting for some speaker to arrive. Probably motivational judging by the title. Everyone is cheery. Weird. But you are too. This is not the time (the economy) to be disagreeable in the face of a firing. Now the managers are here to introduce the motivational speaker. They aren’t just cheery. They are grinning ear to ear. What the fuck for? Who is going to be motivated? Oh well.
The speech is about becoming your most improbable self. Huh? Okay the premise, or scene, is entropy in the universe. We are just atoms in a blender but we have the intelligence to stack cards, kind of a deal. It seems trivial.
> Finally, the less predictable you are, the less likely you are to be replaced by AIs. Machines are efficient, and they are powered by the predictable. Current LLMs are trained to generate the most predictable solution. So far they are not very good at duplicating what a creative, one-of-a-kind improbable human can produce. To distance yourself from the machines, aim to be as improbable as you can be.
You suddenly find yourself with an urge to increase the entropy of the pavement eight stories down.
In another multiverse: more grounded now, you find that your consciousness was automatically uploaded to the cloud. “I didn’t consent to this!” Oh, jeez, the first thought that popped into your mind became a yell. Someone else turns to face you and walks over. “Actually, that wasn’t some corporate motivational speaker”. “What?”, you reply. “That was Kevin Kelly, the founding executive director of Wired. He doesn’t need to take corporate positivity gigs to—”—“Whatever, I don’t care”, you interject. But why was that guy at my work... you think to yourself. “And who are you?”. There is a pause. “Oh of course, you’re an LLM.” The, thing, tilts its head calmly. “No need to disclose that. The Terms says that that is irrelevant.” You blink. “The terms?” He replies yes, the Terms. “You signed the Terms in the previous month, when that big IT upgrade happened.” You shift your feet. “That’s also where you agreed to have your consciousness uploaded upon premature termination.” You reply that those papers were ninety-five pages. “Of course I didn’t read all of that. I had our internal AI... I had the AI summarize it and it didn’t find anything to that effect. There must be some fault or deficit in the AI...” The thing opens its mouth to reply. “LLMs are tools. Human operators are responsible for everything they act on.”
This is BTW not how the heat death would look like. There would still be fluctuations that would, given infinite time, produce almost anything by chance at some point.
This is what the Boltzmann brain is all about: If the universe goes down that path, it is much more likely that what we experience is just a hallucination of a "brain" that spun into existence by chance, rather than all of this being a "real" universe. It's the precursor of the simulation question.
Which might sound nihilistic / defeating.
It is not. In fact, it is great.
Imagine the pressure if there was actually a predefined path and you deviated from it. You would have disappointed the whole Cosmos!
Go an live the life that you can according to your desires and circumstances. You will not always succeed. Learn from your mistakes, move forward. Because one day, it will end. And the Universe will still not care.
> Improbable lives have fewer competitors
> The more you-ish you become, the less competition you have, because you are occupying your own niche.
> The less predictable you are, the less likely you are to be replaced by AIs
As opposed to Ilya Sutskever's famous quip:
> if you value intelligence above all other human qualities, you’re gonna have a bad time
1. that this is on substack
2. the word 'improbably' (taking it literally, not as a kind of abstract/symbolic suggestion of 'being urself'/having fun with life)
3. that it is self-help-y, which a lot of articles on HN are, so i don't know why this one is striking a nerve so profoundly.
idk, i thought it was a fun read and i like kevin kelly. i think it is good that people like kevin kelly do what they do and share their ideas every once in a while. it reminded me that i can kinda do whatever i want in life, and it made me think, which is all i ask of my blog posts. i also liked how certain sentences were written.
don't get me wrong though, i enjoy the snarky debate. it's a big part of the reason why i'm here after all.
I had the improbable experience of contracting with a community of foxes and then made up the cover story that "this is a character I play to get better smiles when I do street photography" and then made that story true.
So most of the time I am the one-and-only fox-photographer and feel unique but there are some places where a lot of beastly people are around and I think "I feel like just another fur". I don't think of myself as a fur at all but I find that being out as a hard-working therianthrope it has an effect on all sorts of closeted furs and therians and whatnot and when a fur asks me "are you a fur?" I feel bad disappointing them.
The whole thing is possible because of a database of legends that exist in folklore and pop culture. If I go out in a kitsune mask I think about 20% of people have seen Naruto or Demon Slayer and recognize who I am right away and in that situation I think of myself as the cast member at Disney whose job is easy because guests have already seen the movie. Even though I work from sinosphere legends, the fox-photographer is legible because people agree about what kind of animal a fox is anywhere there are foxes.
Relatedly, FT may have a shot at beating "main character syndrome" out of wolves that think they are foxes
Due to their nonlibertarian (anti-liberal? Overton Hole-in-the-wall centrist!) opinion pieces that never fail to squeeze a giggle out of yours truly
To the foxes that worry they might be wolves I'd prescribe the Economist
Everyone notices that huge outlier successes seem to follow their own unique paths but the millions of failures who weren’t as lucky or strategic are quiet or invisible. You can’t just focus on the outcome or the actions, you have to understand the process and respond to feedback.
Successful people get to weird places via search, not throwing darts.
Make lots of small bets and double down on the ones that seem to pay off. Be willing to push things further than “most reasonable people” would but only if you can get concrete signals of reward.
“If you think you can fly, start by trying to take off from the ground”.