Everything that turned out well in my life followed the same design process

I'm not sure what this talk about luck and privilege has much to do with the core ideas of the article, which I took to be:

* look critically at your life's successes and your interests, discern what to prioritize

* being aware of societal abstractions and what you're "supposed" to do in life affecting your choices

* that your current "vision" of a proper life might not be the actual best fit for you, precisely because of the above abstractions

I thought these were generally fair points, if not rephrasings of common wisdom like "iterate more" and "your first idea isn't perfect" and "be wary of preconceptions". If you're in a bad material situation, I'm not sure that everything here suddenly doesn't apply?

Not saying that the author isn't privileged, that the path to success wasn't made easier by being able to travel, rent, and buy a farm in the footnotes. But again, the advice seems to be pretty universally put no matter how big or small your steps are.

The initial comments on this post seem unreasonably negative. I did have to stop and process things a bit, but the underlying idea deeply resonates with me. This is quite the nugget:

> The context is smarter than you. It holds more nuance and information than you can fit in your head. Collaborate with it.

Sometimes, I feel like our mental models can form outside of a context (e.g., a classroom setting), and we are tempted to "force" the context to mold to the existing mental model. The problem, as the author describes, is the context tends to be far more complex than your rudimentary mental model.

Instead of forcing the mental model, allow the context to inform and grow it to be reasonable for the current situation. I find this particularly valuable in the field of platform engineering where this sort of behavior is prevalent. Every software team is different, and contexts can vary to a large degree. Instead of taking "the best platform approach" and trying to make your team conform to it, go "be" in the team and let that experience inform what the "best platform approach" is.

It's a great set of advice, with a small caveat - it's very easy to speak about fit and ignore long-term consequences & externalities. It really hit me when they talked about relationships - "A relationship is healthy if it fits the personalities and needs of the people involved"

That is true-ish, but it's also true for e.g. codependent relationships. It doesn't really fit their needs, but when you're codependent, it's hard to see that it doesn't until it's really painful.

This is true for other areas as well - the industry has quite a number of people who found a job that "fit" them, and which then proceeds to grind them into dust because they don't notice it doesn't quite fit. (See the always popular "I just want to farm" exit)

The answer is kind-of buried in the article, but I wish it was called out more clearly. Yes, letting the context drive the fit is great, but it's crucial to have an unbiased set of eyes appraise the fit & the form.

The most common incarnation of that is probably either therapist or priest, but many other professions essentially fulfill the same job - "tell me what you see, because I'm not sure I see it completely"

It shines through in the article that the author did that, but if you're just embarking on this journey, it might help to hear it explicitly.

Reminds me of the advice "Find your passion and let it kill you" only lets flip it so you compromise endlessly first and just accept the life this process finds. Neither approach is truly ever followed by their proponents, it just rings humble and selfless and without responsibility. How agreeable.

Why would my vision for life be an error and the visions that come from interacting with others or "the context" be without error?

You get better at vision when you maintain higher standards for yourself, not when you loosen aims as failure approaches and look at your happiness from 30,000 feet in a daily journal. You do have to decide who you want to be at some point, always with limited information. But willing a great life for yourself is in no way like designing inanimate products to be released.

Marry the right person.. well at least don’t marry the wrong person. And if you do marry the wrong person get out quick!

I'm enjoying the recent small trend of gentle pushback against overly rigid planning.

The idea of discovering a life that fits you rather than trying to predict it up front makes sense to me. In my life I think I've found most success, enjoyment and reward when I've followed my gut as opportunities arise. But I'm not really sure what the guiding reward signal is. Without up front choosing you want to be rich, high status, surrounded by a loving family, popular, for example, how do you make the near-term tactical choices well? Is it just "do what feels right"?

I see how this mental model is helpful for a lot of people. I think the points he's making about the “unfolding” topic are universally great; at first glance, it looks like a straightforward idea, but we fail at keeping it in mind when we do the actual thinking. I've added a couple of his questions in that section to my journaling template.

I'm particularly intrigued by the idea of unbundling complex problems to gain deeper insights. This approach seems to offer a powerful way to challenge assumptions and find innovative solutions.

The title put me off a little. My initial reaction was "Well you're probably privileged, lucky, or both. And I bet you don't have a mental health problem."

However, the article makes some good points and I'm genuinely pleased to read about the author's successes in life and how he worked at it.

One thing that strikes me is that the author puts a lot of stock in talking to people and getting their perspectives, experiences and ideas. I think I need to do more of that!

> I paid attention to things I liked to do, and found ways to do more of that

This is great advice to people who dont need to have a job that takes up all their time.

Sorry to be negative for no reason but I got nothing out of reading this article other than the author has been extremely lucky and privileged.