Definitely resonating with some of this right now, continuing on a journey of discovery of my self and my past. Thank you for sharing
Sounds a lot like the Baby Elephant Syndrome. Worth reading into if you're interested in the above.
Maybe you’re not trying
41–50 of 196 posts
Re: Maybe you’re not trying
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upvoted because many people genuinely believe that agency is an illusion and therefore there's no point in trying. But the "therefore" part is not true. The state of believing that you can do it is a state that precedes actually doing it. This is true regardless of whether the universe is deterministic.
Sure and what precedes that is brain activity. You're not "willing" neurons into firing in such a way that will result in a thought to try harder.
Even if agency is an illusion, there's still a point in trying. Assuming determinism, whether or not those neurons fire in such a way depends on whether you believe "agency is an illusion, therefore there's no point in trying".
And whether you believe that might depend on whether you read this, so consider yourself lucky.
Re: Maybe you’re not trying
#43> I learned his real name and used it to track down an old friend of his to ask for help Does anybody else find this strange? There's this person whose name you don't even know, but somehow you know who his old friends are? This is not a situation I'm familiar with.
> > I learned his real name and used it to track down an old friend of his to ask for help
You left out the adverbial phrase. The whole sentence is
> When he reached out to my company six months later to apply for a job, I learned his real name and used it to track down an old friend of his to ask for help — but the friend told me he was afraid to intervene because he didn’t want to become a target himself.
When the stalker applied for a job, additional details may have become available to the OP, potentially including personal references (i.e. "old friend".)
Re: Maybe you’re not trying
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people will accept a brain tumor as an excuse for bad behavior, but not low blood sugar. I have successfully convinced people that hungry judges have less agency than full ones, though. (google hungry judge effect if you're curious).
As a person who would like to excuse my overeating on confirmed problems with blood sugar, I agree with you fully. We have different amount of willpower in different situations and in the same situation between different times of day. But we still have some agency, it's not fully predetermined. And like being overweight, training can help. I would even say that combating fat needs willpower and increases your availab…
That's not my position at all. Obviously you had no agency in your genetics. I assume you don't believe you had agency in pre-natal nutrition or the circumstance of your upbringing.
The rest of your life is just reacting to things downstream from that with an algorithm based on your nature and your nurture.
If it weren't for quantum effects you could model the outcome and it would be the same every time.
Re: Maybe you’re not trying
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also see “It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not weakness, that is life.” Jean-Luc Picard
Also, not everything is a competition that needs to be won.
If you want to stay the same and
not become better at something, you are correct.
Competition is many times about challening yourself, failing, learning from that failure, and eventually succeeding.
Re: Maybe you’re not trying
#46I think the "maybe you're not actually trying" framing is not very constructive. The author did try, making decisions and taking actions that seemed appropriate for her situation at the time. The problem was that because her attempts to solve the problem failed -- again and again and again -- she stopped trying. Which is a not-entirely-unreasonable thing to do. I would frame it more like: just because you have tried…
I found this helpful in the context of the author’s other work. “Maybe you can try a different way” feels less useful than “if you really, really wanted to do this, what would you do that you’re not doing right now”? Even though they’re effectively the same thing, I can usually think of an answer to the second question quickly. It reminds me of Mr Krabs having to let go of the dime.
Re: Maybe you’re not trying
#47I think the "maybe you're not actually trying" framing is not very constructive. The author did try, making decisions and taking actions that seemed appropriate for her situation at the time. The problem was that because her attempts to solve the problem failed -- again and again and again -- she stopped trying. Which is a not-entirely-unreasonable thing to do. I would frame it more like: just because you have tried…
My therapist calls this "touching the hot stove". When you put a lot of effort into a problem and fail over and over, your mind "gives up" as a protective measure. You can drive yourself crazy trying to push forward and find a solution in a straight line.
It is sometimes useful to get outside input or take a break and wait for new circumstances.
Not going to lie, it is also very possible a husband going to law enforcement gets taken more seriously than a woman reporting stalking.
Re: Maybe you’re not trying
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure and what precedes that is brain activity. You're not "willing" neurons into firing in such a way that will result in a thought to try harder.
Even if agency is an illusion, there's still a point in trying. Assuming determinism, whether or not those neurons fire in such a way depends on whether you believe "agency is an illusion, therefore there's no point in trying". And whether you believe that might depend on whether you read this, so consider yourself lucky.
> And whether you believe that might depend on whether you read this, so consider yourself lucky.
See right there you're saying trying depends on something I don't control which is making my point for me.
Re: Maybe you’re not trying
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also see “It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not weakness, that is life.” Jean-Luc Picard
Also, not everything is a competition that needs to be won.
I am not competitive. That's a deliberate stance, and one that I've held for decades.
It does contribute to the fact that I haven't achieved greatness, but I have no regrets, and haven't done badly, despite that. It's not weakness, as some folks have found out, over the years.
When I "win," then someone else "loses." I have a problem with that.
Re: Maybe you’re not trying
#50If you, the reader, are having "productivity problems" please get assessed for ADHD.
A lot of productivity writing has the frame "trust me, I was incorrigible and this system worked for me. If it worked for me it will work for you."
None of those systems ever worked for me. I worried about learned helplessness. I worried that imposter syndrome was actually just me being an imposter. I worried I wasn't trying hard enough, and spent enormous effort trying every idea I could: meditation, delegation, therapy, coaching, exercise, diet, sleep, prayer, etc., etc., on and on.
After DECADES of stress and pain it turned out to be a dopamine deficiency. Contemporary medication addressed this for me, quickly and effectively.