Again, I agree… outside the bounds of this excercise.
I have absolutely no objection to any of your advice, whatsoever. It’s all pretty good advice, if presented a little forcefully. But I get that sort of “tough titties, now do the work” methodology. Nor would I be making any noise if this was only an article about aspiring rationalists giving advice to other aspiring rationalists.
But it isn’t.
The point is to figure out a strategy to AVOID the obstacles presented, not insist that the obstacles be removed. That way the obstacles can no longer be used as an EXCUSE not to do the thing. The point of the Rejection Challenge is to excise excuses not excise obstacles.
The one: “I can’t get from point A to point B because there is a wall in the way.”
The other (1): “Walk around the wall. Get a ladder and climb over it. Get someone to boost you over. Etc., etc.”
The other (2): “Break the wall down, and walk straight from A to B.”
We want to take path 1, not path 2.
ETA: If you disagree with the core point of the excercise, I don’t think anyone would object to you commenting and saying so, while explaining precisely WHY.
Again, I agree… outside the bounds of this excercise.
I have absolutely no objection to any of your advice, whatsoever. It’s all pretty good advice, if presented a little forcefully. But I get that sort of “tough titties, now do the work” methodology. Nor would I be making any noise if this was only an article about aspiring rationalists giving advice to other aspiring rationalists.
But it isn’t.
The point is to figure out a strategy to AVOID the obstacles presented, not insist that the obstacles be removed. That way the obstacles can no longer be used as an EXCUSE not to do the thing. The point of the Rejection Challenge is to excise excuses not excise obstacles.
The one: “I can’t get from point A to point B because there is a wall in the way.” The other (1): “Walk around the wall. Get a ladder and climb over it. Get someone to boost you over. Etc., etc.” The other (2): “Break the wall down, and walk straight from A to B.”
We want to take path 1, not path 2.
ETA: If you disagree with the core point of the excercise, I don’t think anyone would object to you commenting and saying so, while explaining precisely WHY.