Pernani

Not sure if you read what I wrote.

thank uu for ur input

While going through the values assessment part 8 (where you're supposed to rank your values based on how much you desire them over the others) I found myself prioritising the different values i have on my list based on what I desire at this current stage in my life! I'm not sure if I'm doing right. I think this approach is appropriate since the things we value are expected to change and morph as we go through life? I can imagine that I would have different results if I tried to classify my values based on what find is timelessly meaningful to me, if there's such a thing. Like I strongly feel like I'm currently drawn to the value of Contribution over the value of Beauty, but I'm also half expecting that to change in the future, if that makes sense. How do u approach this? Also, ranking values according to what I need at the moment just feels easier a lot more intuitive.

I'm giving the life purpose course another go (after failing to finish it), and I'm currently doing the values assessement. There's some values that really speak to me (like Passion) but when I think about what they mean to me concretely they remain vague and elusive. Like I can't pinpoint what following the value of passion looks like, because it's almost like it's synonymous with following your values in general (same as authenticity) and it's the whole point of taking the life purpose course. I hope I'm not overthinking this. Should you work with values that u feel are meaningful to you but aren't clear and precise in your mind? @Leo Gura

Epic fractals of immense beauty I can feel like I'm tripping balls just watching his videos Visually stunning and meaningful essays on movies High quality documentaries about interesting and often mysterious topics

No reason to do anything. Why not do things for the sake of doing them? Living life in beauty and happiness is meaningless, yet it's heck of a lot more enjoyable than the alternative (at least that's how I see it)

hehehehe so funnyy.. thanks for contributing nothing

Some excerpts from the article: On chess mastery: "There were large differences in mean amount of deliberate practice across the skill groups: master M = 10,530 h (SD = 7414), expert M = 5673 h (SD = 4654), and intermediate M = 3179 h (SD = 4615). However, as the SDs suggest, there were very large ranges of deliberate practice within skill groups. For example, the range for the masters was 832 to 24,284 h—a difference of nearly three orders of magnitude. Furthermore, there was overlap in distributions between skill groups. For example, of the 16 masters, 31.3% (n = 5) had less deliberate practice than the mean of the expert group..." "But the data indicate that there is an enormous amount of variability in deliberate practice—even in elite performers. One player in Gobet and Campitelli's (2007) chess sample took 26 years of serious involvement in chess to reach a master level, while another player took less than 2 years to reach this level." "In Gobet and Campitelli's (2007) chess sample, four participants estimated more than 10,000 h of deliberate practice, and yet remained intermediatelevel players. This conclusion runs counter to the egalitarian view that anyone can achieve most anything he or she wishes, with enough hard work. The silver lining, we believe, is that when people are given an accurate assessment of their abilities and of the likelihood of achieving certain goals given those abilities, they may gravitate towards domains in which they have a realistic chance of becoming an expert through deliberate practice" Though Anders Ericsson (very influential writer in the science of expertise, the main subject of criticism by the article) states that the researchers in that article didn't take into consideration the real definition and conditions of "deliberate practice", which according to him is the sole agent responsible for becoming a master at any given domain (except domains that require certain physiological traits).

I've read all of your replies. Contradictory and complementary perspectives. I agree that even if talents did exist, they wouldn't matter to shit without practice, and that the existence of talents is most obvious in physical traits (body stuff). But whether or not it exists with regards to less material attributes is still confusing for me. Leaving the "passion" and "love" factors out of the equation, I think the value of this question is that if it turns out that all strengths are based on previous practice, then that robs them of their otherwise fateful characteristic ; as in, "I was born to do this thing, because of my innate talent for it that is independent from anything else, it is my destiny". And that may also alleviate the anxiety and indecisiveness that may come from trying to locate these talents and trying to figure out how to locate them in the first place. This seems to me like it's a question of nature vs nurture, idk if anyone has ever came to a conclusion regarding this question. I don't even know how it's possible to figure it out. It'd be nice to see thoughts or resources regarding this. Anyhow, I found this interesting article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236884283_Deliberate_practice_Is_that_all_it_takes_to_become_an_expert

It is stated in the course that talent doesn't exist, and that any seeming talent can be explained away by attributing it to practice. Does that mean that Strengths are also based on previous practice? It'd be great if @Leo Gura can answer this

Okay, I thought that you were hinting at the possibility of connecting with another without having them relate to your meanings and the way you see the world. Turns out the only thing that should be dropped of the equation is expectation, and not accepting the fact that it's only natural for others to have their own meanings which may not relate to yours, and that's how you can share yourself without it stemming from insecurity and the need for approval. Sounds simple enough. Great wisdom lies in simplicity as always <3 Thank you for the share <3

What does it mean to connect with another, beyond the act of expecting them to relate to your own conceptual meaning/values matrix ? Sharing is about becoming more whole... hmmmmmmmmm...

I do share your perspective on how connecting through vulnerability isn't a bad thing. But don't you feel like there's some merit from being aware of how you seek approval from others, and thus dropping it? I would rather not be emotionally enslaved to how people think of me and whether or not they give a shit about me, so I envision that if one drops that tendency they would have a lot more peace of mind (and maybe derive more satisfaction from life?). In a sense, it kinda feels "absurd", "dirty" and "inauthentic" to do that. Sorry, I'm not getting your point @Brittany @Nahm Thank you for pointing out just how much I am identifying with my thoughts and my ego. There's a lot there to digest tho... I'd rather explore ways to raise my awareness of this issue without having to achieve the challenging feat of transcending my ego, but then again the answer might just be that I need to become more aware of my ego and my attachment to it

I notice that I do this a lot. For some reason I've always valued sharing things that are meaningful to me with others, seeing it as essential for building meaningful and authentic connections. But I never quite questioned where that desire was coming from till now. I recently had my first psychedelic trip and it was a very meaningful experience to me, so I found myself actively looking through the list of people that I know, to find those with whom I could share this experience with. Then I talked about it to one person, and the reaction I got from them was one of apathy and disinterest, and that felt a bit bad. The lack of approval, the fact that this person saw something that was very important to me as unimportant, mattered for some reason and came with an emotional reaction. That's what made me stop and question my tendency to openly share myself (sometimes overshare): goals, experiences, ideas, passions... If those matter to me, why should it matter if others share my sentiment or not ? It seems that there has always been an ulterior egoic motive under what I thought was a genuine attempt to nourish genuine connections. So I guess my question is: How does one distinguish if they're sharing themselves out of approval seeking (insecurity, ego...) or out of a genuine attempt to connect with others without any motives stemming from insecurity and seeking validation ? How does one increase their awareness of this distinction so to speak?

Thanks for sharing your experience. I can relate to some of that, although I relate to your partners who thought they were sexually "open" and "free" only to find out that their emotions say otherwise. Sometimes we can "know" something conceptually while we feel in an entirely different way.