I agree with the “you shouldn’t HAVE to worry about what people think about you” mode of thought, but the point of this excercise is to treat these things as if they were the person’s true rejections.
And if they are their true rejections (which they very well may be), then how is it possible to still excecute X action that they desire to, while circumventing the previously stated rejection.
Assume the LCPW where I implanted a device inside Fergus’ head, which will explode if he worries about what he’s signalling/what others are thinking about him/getting criticism, when he runs. Then propose solutions that let him both run, and not have his head explode. Concrete advice, not just, “Well, if you didn’t think that way, your head wouldn’t explode. So don’t think that way.”
I am treating it as if it’s a blocker to him acting on a goal.
And I never said “you shouldn’t have to worry...”, all I said was that letting what other people think get in the way of doing the right thing isn’t very smart.
Sometimes the best way to overcome a block is to just accept that things are like that and push on. The opinions of strangers is one thing that you cannot (much) influence. You should consider how you appearance and actions look to them because of things like them calling the police because you’re wandering around at 2 in the morning howling along to Norwegian Death Metal, but if you just want to go trail running in a place where other kids like to pour cheap booze down their throats and start on the next generation, then just keep running.
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.
I agree with the “you shouldn’t HAVE to worry about what people think about you” mode of thought, but the point of this excercise is to treat these things as if they were the person’s true rejections.
And if they are their true rejections (which they very well may be), then how is it possible to still excecute X action that they desire to, while circumventing the previously stated rejection.
Assume the LCPW where I implanted a device inside Fergus’ head, which will explode if he worries about what he’s signalling/what others are thinking about him/getting criticism, when he runs. Then propose solutions that let him both run, and not have his head explode. Concrete advice, not just, “Well, if you didn’t think that way, your head wouldn’t explode. So don’t think that way.”
I am treating it as if it’s a blocker to him acting on a goal.
And I never said “you shouldn’t have to worry...”, all I said was that letting what other people think get in the way of doing the right thing isn’t very smart.
Sometimes the best way to overcome a block is to just accept that things are like that and push on. The opinions of strangers is one thing that you cannot (much) influence. You should consider how you appearance and actions look to them because of things like them calling the police because you’re wandering around at 2 in the morning howling along to Norwegian Death Metal, but if you just want to go trail running in a place where other kids like to pour cheap booze down their throats and start on the next generation, then just keep running.
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.