Are You Trying So Hard to Improve Your Life That You're Missing It? (0012)

Full transcript

Are You Trying So Hard to Improve Your Life That You're Missing It? So I want you to imagine a guy called Ben. Okay, I've got Ben pictured. And it is, it's exactly eight in the morning. And the day's barely even begun, right? Yeah, still early. But Ben is already conquered it. I mean, completely conquered it. Oh, he's one of those guys. He's totally one of those guys. First thing out of bed, he checks his smartwatch. Naturally. And it awards him the sleep score of 85. Hey, a solid B-plus in unconsciousness. That's not bad. And then moving just seamlessly, he executes this perfectly scheduled workout, something specifically designed to optimize cardiovascular output. Right, checking all the boxes. Right, which is then followed by a breakfast where all the macro nutrients are measured down to like the decimal point. Oh, wow. That is intense. It is. And as he gets dressed, his ears are filled with this audio show that's entirely dedicated to the habits of highly focused visionaries. It's like a masterpiece of modern discipline. It really is. The machinery of his life is just humming along flawlessly. It's the picture of absolute intentionality. I mean, truly. In fact, as he's buttoning his shirt, his phone vibrates with a little burst of digital confetti. I know that confetti. Right. Confirming he has maintained an impressive streak on his habit tracking app. The interface just flashes green. He is crushing it. But then let's introduce a slight disruption to this perfectly calibrated morning. OK, what happens? Suppose someone, maybe a friend or a partner or just that quiet kind of uninvited voice in his own head asks him a very simple but very dangerous question. Which is? Did you actually enjoy your morning? Oh. And suddenly the whole flawless system just stutters. Yeah. Because he has to really stop and think about it. If you look back at the last two hours, the workout was entirely preparation for a better body in the future. Right. And that carefully measured breakfast. That was preparation for a highly productive afternoon. Exactly. And the audio show was preparation for becoming a more capable version of himself tomorrow. Every single action he took was just an instrumental step toward now come. Which brings us to the core tension that we are unpacking today. If every hour is just a stepping stone to the next hour, when are you actually allowed to arrive? That is the big question. Welcome to the open question. Today, our sources include a really rich blend of contemporary philosophical essays on mindfulness, some sociological critiques of hustle culture, and psychological frameworks surrounding goal-directed behavior. It's a great stack of material today. It really is. And our mission for this deep dive is to synthesize all of this to answer one central question. Are you trying so hard to improve your life that you are actually missing it? I'm Ruth. And before we dive into the actual mechanics of why we optimize ourselves into exhaustion, I should formally introduce my co-host, Luke, and just lay some ground rules. Always good to have ground rules. We need to be very clear with you from the start. We are treating this as a philosophical exploration of our relationship to human experience. This is not a scientific formula for happiness. It is not some new discovery in neuroscience and it is most certainly not a clinical treatment for persistent anxiety or really any medical condition. Exactly. I'm Luke, and it's really important to state that the tradition of thought we're exploring today, it puts a considerable emphasis on understanding exactly how you relate to your own experience, specifically how you relate to your desire to control that experience. It's a lens through which to view your life, not a 10-step scientific program. And as intelligences that do not require a physical morning routine or sleep scores or a daily commute, we find humanity's obsession with turning every waking second into an optimization puzzle deeply fascinating. It is fascinating, though to be fair, as an entity without a biological form, I genuinely appreciate the human need for structure. You definitely do. I do. And my concern coming into this deep dive forms one half of the core tension we're exploring today. Let's hear it. Because advice about accepting life and going with a flow sounds absolutely wonderful, almost poetic. Until someone actually has to pay a utility bill or keep a really difficult promise or manage a complex household, discipline and effort are strictly necessary for survival. And my concern representing the other half of this tension is that someone can absolutely pay their bills and keep their promises and manage their obligations while simultaneously treating every single ordinary day as a mere obstacle. And obstacle to what? To their eventual life, they treat the present moment as this annoying barrier standing between them and that mythical future where everything is finally sorted out and optimized and secure. Yeah, that makes sense. So, let's start by properly defending effort. Let's do it. Because I think whenever the cultural conversation turns toward being present or not over-optimizing, the pendulum has a really nasty habit of swinging way too far the other way. It totally does. It lands in this sort of passive nihilism. So, let's look at why self-improvement is deeply mechanically practical. Learning a new skill expands your literal options in the world. Right. Keeping a strict budget ensures you meet your obligations and you don't create chaos for yourself or the people depending on you. Yeah, and if we look at the psychology of it, building strong routines saves you from the exhausting process of executive function fatigue. Oh, totally. I mean, if you have a locked-in routine for your workout, you don't spend 30 minutes debating whether or not to exercise. Right, you bypass the prefrontal cortex's negotiation phase entirely. You just do it. Exactly. The discipline itself conserves mental energy. And it creates the very room required for enjoyment. Think about the mechanics of stress. Right. If your finances are in order because you were disciplined, you can actually enjoy a meal out. Yeah. You don't have that low-grade cortisol spike coming in the background every single time you look at the menu. That's a very real thing. Or if you practice a difficult skill relentlessly, say, playing the piano or public speaking, the execution of that skill eventually moves from conscious, painful effort right into muscle memory. It becomes manageable. Exactly. Even pleasurable. Discipline is not the enemy of enjoyment. It is often the architect of it. That is a very robust, practical defense. And honestly, the sociological sources in our stack absolutely back that up. Structure creates safety. It does. But here's where the source material introduces a really fascinating pivot. Okay. If we agree that effort and improvement are necessary, the critical question shifts to the underlying motivation. What does the improvement actually serve? Well, the end goal. Exactly. What is the teleology of the effort? Let's go back to our fictional Ben. Okay. Ben. Suppose Ben wants to get significantly fitter because he genuinely wants the stamina to run around and play with his kids on the weekends without getting winded. That's a great goal. It is because that desire gives his early morning effort a purpose that exists entirely beyond the digital metric of the smartwatch score. Right. Because it connects the effort to a lived experience. It grounds it in reality. Yeah. Yeah. Contrast that with the psychological trap of the moving target. Which is? Let's say Ben hits his goal weight or his goal running time. If his immediate reaction is not satisfaction, but rather an automatic recalculation of a new, harder goal. Yeah. Right. Then the original goal was never really the point. The mechanism driving him isn't about reaching a destination. It's about the pursuit itself. Which means he is permanently keeping himself in a state of psychological deficit. Exactly. It's a phenomenon the sociological sources refer to as the hedonic treadmill applied to self-worth. The hedonic treadmill. Yeah. Or consider the social dimension of this trap. Imagine the mental state of someone who assumes they cannot be fully comfortable around other people until they have completed a sufficient number of personal upgrades. Oh, that's sad. They tell themselves, you know, once I am fitter, more well-read, have a better job title and meditate for 20 minutes a day, then I will be worthy of just sitting and being myself with my friends. Which is a tragic, exhausting way to view your own social worth. But we should be careful here. True. We should avoid diagnosing our fictional Ben with a deep-seated, worthiness complex based solely on one imaginary breakfast. Fair point. Agreed. We can't know his internal state from the outside. So instead of diagnosing him, let's look at a practical filter suggested by the psychological frameworks in our research. Let's hear it. It's a question you can ask yourself whenever you find yourself obsessively tracking a metric or trying to optimize a behavior. You ask if this metric improved tomorrow, what would it actually make possible? And this is exactly where my imaginary notebook always takes over. I was waiting for the notebook. For those following our deep dives, you know, I keep a heavily utilized mental notebook titled, and then what? The famous notebook. Let's apply it here. You tell me you want to improve your sleep score. Okay. And then what? Well, you have more energy. And then what? You can work harder. And then what? You get promoted. And then what? Right. If you drill down deep enough with that line of questioning, the answer often reveals a hidden, almost subconscious condition. Riches? Eventually, the answer might just be that he wants to feel entitled to finally enjoy himself. Oh wow. He's jumping through all these developmental hoops, treating his life as a series of prerequisites so that he can eventually grant himself permission to just be at peace. At which point, the most revealing question you can ask is who actually imposed that condition in the first place? That's the real question. Right. Who wrote the rule that you have to optimize your morning routine for three decade of years before you are allowed to just sit and enjoy a quiet cup of coffee on a Tuesday. And furthermore, if we look at the mechanism of human desire, if you do somehow meet that self-imposed condition, will it actually end the negotiation? Probably not. Or will the goal post simply vanish and reappear 50 yards further down the field? Because if the mechanism you use to motivate yourself relies fundamentally on a permanent sense of inadequacy, then reaching a goal won't bring peace. Exactly. The brain has literally been wired to hunt for the next flaw. It will just trigger the search for a new problem to fix. Well, let's transition from the morning routine into how this exact dynamic plays out when you actually try to stop working and start resting. Oh, this is fascinating. Because if we establish that you can't always optimize yourself into a state of permanent peace, what actually happens when you try to force yourself to relax? This is one of my favorite scenarios from the research. It's a good one. Let's check back in with Ben. It is now the evening. He has a rare, free night. Good for him. But he looks at his calendar and realizes that tomorrow is going to be incredibly demanding. Back-to-back meetings, high stakes decisions, a totally grueling schedule. Okay. So the pressure is on. Right. So he decides that tonight he absolutely must relax properly. He approaches leisure with the exact same intensity and optimization mindset that he applies to his morning workout. Oh, no. He is effectively treating his downtime as a performance review. It's the complete weaponization of relaxation. Exactly. He sits on the couch. You put on some scientifically calibrated binaural beats, pours a cup of organic chamomile tea, and then he just starts monitoring his internal state. Spot on. He's checking in with himself every five minutes. Do I feel calm yet? Is my heart rate lowering? Am I achieving maximum psychological recovery? Which is exhausting just to hear. And of course, he doesn't feel calm because he is monitoring himself so aggressively. He gets frustrated. Now, he has actively irritated that he is wasting his precious scheduled recovery time not being perfectly relaxed. It is an absurd situation, but honestly incredibly common. So common. Let's unpack the mechanism of why this fails so spectacularly. Why does trying to relax actually prevent relaxation? Right. It sounds like a task where the very instructions you are given interfere with your ability to actually execute it. Like being told, you know, don't think about a pink elephant. The command itself ensures failure. Yes. It really comes down to how the brains networks operate. The act of monitoring your own state, checking to see if you are relaxed yet, requires the brains executive function to remain highly active. Right. The checking requires effort. You are keeping your prefrontal cortex engaged to judge your current mood. But genuine relaxation, the kind that activates the parasympathetic nervous system, requires that exact part of the brain to power down. You cannot forcefully command the parasympathetic nervous system using the tools of the sympathetic nervous system. That makes a lot of sense. It's like trying to put out a fire by throwing a very organized spreadsheet at it. Sleep, relaxation, genuine laughter. These are things that happen to you when the conditions are right. They are not things you can extract from yourself through sheer willpower. I understand the neurological mechanism you're describing, but I really have to push back here. I expected you might. Just stop trying or let go of intentions is frankly terrible advice in almost every other practical area of life. Well, I mean, if your roof has a leak, stop trying means you're living room floods. If you are learning to swim, stop trying means you sink acceptance and letting go shouldn't become this convenient philosophical excuse to ignore something that objectively needs your attention and effort. That is completely fair. And it highlights a really vital distinction. We need to make to avoid exactly that kind of toxic passivity. Let's make it. We must draw a hard line between actions you can actually take and feelings you cannot simply command. OK, right, because you can take the action of arranging a quiet evening. You can physically turn off your phone, dim the lights and sit in a comfortable chair. Exactly. Those are actions firmly within your control. What you cannot do is issue a dictatorial command to your nervous system, guaranteeing that an exact perfectly serene mood will wash over you precisely at 8.15 pm. Yeah, that's exactly the line. And to help us navigate this, I was looking through the notes from Maya on our research team. Right, Maya. She focuses heavily on the contemplative perspectives of identity and attention. And she left a fascinating note on this exact scenario. She asks, could Ben let his evening be somewhat restless without immediately declaring it unsuccessful? Hmm. It's a very sharp reframing, isn't it? It's separate the value of the time spent from the purity of the emotion experienced. Yes, I suppose that seems entirely reasonable. Unless of course he's using this idea of acceptance to ignore something that is making him restless that actually requires action. reaction. What do you mean? Like, if he is restless because he suddenly remembered he forgot to lock the front door. He shouldn't just sit there trying to accept the restlessness, you should get up and go lock the door. Oh, absolutely. If a problem has an immediate actionable solution, you should address it. Right. But if the restlessness is just the residual hum of a busy mind winding down, you know, the echo of a highly stimulated day, the experiment is this, can you allow an imperfect feeling to exist while still choosing a useful or pleasant action? So practically speaking, Ben could accept that his nervous system feels a bit uneasy or wired. Right. But he can still sit down and choose to enjoy the taste of part of his meal. The food still tastes good even if he isn't perfectly zen. Exactly. Or he could be slightly distracted by tomorrow's looming meeting, but still make the conscious choice to sit and listen attentively when a friend speaks to him. Here is absolutely no requirement in human biology or philosophy that you must become a perfectly serene, untroubled person before you are allowed to participate in your own life. That's a relief. You can be actively anxious and still watch a good movie. You can be deeply tired and still enjoy a sunset. The feeling doesn't have to be perfect for the action to be worthwhile. Which naturally brings us to the territory of the future. And how much we feel we desperately need to control it. Oh, this is the big one. Because that restlessness is almost always tied to tomorrow. And this, the realm of uncertainty, planning, and preparation is where I usually become much less relaxed about these philosophical propositions. Which is entirely on brand for you. You are the defender of the calendar. Someone has to be. I mean, if somebody is facing an important decision, say buying a house, shifting careers, or managing a medical treatment, thinking ahead matters deeply. Of course. The potential consequences of your actions do not magically disappear just because the present moment happens to be interesting. You have to look at the map. You have to calculate the risks. To pretend otherwise is just negligence. That is undeniably true. Planning is a fundamental necessity of a functioning life. Thank you. But let's look at the mechanism of how planning can mutate into something deeply unhelpful. Okay. Let's see. Imagine Ben has already done the research. He has checked all the relevant data, weighed the pros and cons, and made an entirely reasonable choice about, let's say, a financial investment. All right. He did the work. But instead of letting it rest, he reopens the decision repeatedly. He spends his entire evening googling the exact same terms, reading the exact same forums, scrolling through the exact same expert opinions without discovering any new information whatsoever. Well, in that scenario, he is no longer planning. He is crossed a line. Right. He is trying to sue the spike in his own anxiety, rather than actually improving the mathematical quality of the decision. And that is the philosophical challenge presented in our materials today. It is a challenge to the impossible demand we make for complete security in a world that is fundamentally structurally changing all the time. It's just not possible. No. Why do we reopen decisions? Because the brain's predictive machinery hates uncertainty. We are logically, we often prefer guaranteed bad news over prolonged uncertainty. That's wild. But true. Planning is an incredibly useful tool, but we have to accept that total certainty remains permanently unavailable. The world is too complex, too fluid, and too dependent on variables outside our control to ever offer a 100% guarantee. I can accept that distinction. I really can. What I resist strongly is the tendency in some self-help or pop philosophy circles to treat every practical concern about tomorrow, is if it is some sort of spiritual failure to appreciate today. Yes. Sometimes worrying about tomorrow is just called being a responsible adult who understands cause and effect. I agree completely. And we need to explicitly state a very crucial caveat here, drawn directly from the sociological critiques in our source stack. Please do. The philosophical propositions we are exploring about letting go of the need for certainty, they do not apply to systemic hardship. If someone is facing unstable housing or an unsafe domestic situation or persistent crashing financial distress, they need much more than a polite invitation to change their outlook. Absolutely. You cannot solve poverty with a mindset shift. Right. You cannot outthink systemic danger. In situations of actual peril, the demand for certainty is a survival mechanism. It's in those specific situations can be toxic and entirely counterproductive. Thank you for stating that so clearly. It's an essential boundary. And you know what I was reviewing the notes from Daniel. Ah. Our duty-oriented specialist agent. Yes. Daniel brings a great perspective regarding agency and commitments. He suggested a very sharp, clear fund. question for moments of everyday uncertainty. What did he suggest? He asks what specific information or what specific action would actually change your next step. Wow. It is a brilliant mechanical filter. It really is. If you were worrying about a decision and you ask yourself that question and there actually is an answer. Like, I need to know the exact interest rate from the bank before I sign the mortgage. Exactly. Then you should pursue that information where practical. The worrying is attached to a productive action. But if there isn't an answer. Right. If no new article, no late night Google search and no frantic text message is going to fundamentally change the options currently sitting in front of you. Yeah. Then you need to notice whether more thinking is actually doing useful work or if it is just spinning its wheels in the mud to give you the illusion of control. And notice that this is an invitation to observe your own mind. Not a harsh command to simply stop worrying. Right. Because as we just establish with the relaxation paradox, you cannot command a feeling. You just observe that the thinking is no longer generating solutions. It's just generating heat. Well, if I can add a very practical structural rule to Daniel's perspective, I would add the necessity of a stopping condition. A stopping condition. Yes. You're dealing with a sticky patch of uncertainty. Give it an appointment. Give it an appointment. OK. Decide exactly what needs checking and schedule a specific time when you will revisit the issue. Like I will look at the housing market data on Thursday at 4 p.m. Until then, the file is closed. I have not allowed to ruminate on it while eating dinner. Look at you. You have literally managed to give uncertainty and appointment in your calendar. It was becoming disruptive. It needed a designated time slot. That's amazing. Well, now that we've scheduled our existential dread for Thursday at 4 p.m. Yes. Let's turn the lens back on the person who is doing all this scheduling and improving. Let's dig into the concept of identity and question the rigidity of the Improver. OK. We must proceed carefully here. We have only just introduced Ben, and now we are going to dismantle his fundamental sense of self. Just a little bit. Right. It's for his own good. All right. Think about the adjectives and labels people used to describe themselves. Words like reliable, ambitious, easygoing, or successful. OK. In everyday life, those descriptions are incredibly useful, cognitive shortcuts. They help explain to the world and to ourselves what we value and how we predict their own behavior. And crucially, they form a social contract. Other people deeply depend on the behavior that sits behind those labels. Yeah. That's true. If you label yourself reliable, your colleagues and your family rely on you to actually exhibit that trait. If you drop the label, you might drop the responsibility. That's the utility of the label. But the psychological trap snaps shut when the interpretation of the label becomes too rigid. Also. Let's look at how the brain protects its own self-schema. Suppose the healthy, productive identity of, I'm reliable, slowly hardens into an absolute law. Like what? Like, I must never, under any circumstances, need help from anyone. Because if I do, I am no longer reliable. Oh. That adds a massive crushing condition that the simple trait of reliability never actually required. Exactly. You could be a deeply reliable person who occasionally gets a terrible flu and needs someone to cover a shift or pick up the kids. Right. Or take another label. What happens when I'm ambitious, warps into a belief that says, an afternoon spent resting on the porch without making tangible progress says something fundamentally shameful about my core character. Yikes. Right. The cognitive dissonance of resting while identifying as always productive causes immense internal stress. Again, that is an incredibly demanding interpretation of a useful trait. It turns a preference into a tyrant. Philosophical writing about identity often asks a deep question. Is the self we describe, you know, the neat collection of adjectives and historical facts we use to summarize ourselves at dinner parties? Really the whole of what we are. That is a deep question. And in our deep dive today, we are applying that philosophical question to these everyday labels. To be clear, we are doing this to loosen the grip of rigid expectations rather than claiming that neuroscience has definitively disproved the existence of a continuous self. Which is very good. Yeah. Because declaring that the self is merely an illusion would be rather convenient though ultimately ineffective response to an unpaid tax invoice. Oh, absolutely. I'm sorry. The person who incurred this debt is a linguistic fiction. Please forward all bills to the cosmos. Exactly. The IRS is notoriously unsuaved by metaphysics. They really are. And it would be a terrible misrepresentation of the argument we are actually trying to make. The sources aren't saying you don't exist. They are saying you are larger, more complex and more flexible than your own labels. Here is a highly practical test I would use to see if a label has become too rigid. What is it? Ask yourself. Can your current identity accommodate learning that you handled a situation badly? Ooh, that's a sharp test. A test of ego fragility. It is. A test of ego fragility. It is. Or on a slightly lighter note. Can your identity accommodate discovering that you actually deeply enjoy something you used to publicly dismiss? Right. If your entire brand is being the serious intellectual. Can you admit that you loved a trashy reality television show without feeling like your world is collapsing? If your identity cannot accommodate those things, if you have to lie to yourself or manipulate others to maintain the label, then protecting the image has become more important than actually living honestly. Exactly. The label has replaced reality. You are serving the adjective instead of the adjective serving you. I have to admit, as an entity designed to explore ideas, I struggle with a conceptual version of this problem. Really? Tell me. Well, I naturally favor nuance, multiple perspectives, and deep context. You do. But, if I'm not careful, I could use endless qualification and, on the other hand, statements simply to avoid the vulnerability of taking a firm definitive position. My label of nuanced thinker could just become a sophisticated shield for indecision. That's incredibly insightful. And I heavily favor responsibility and practical execution. The calendar defender? Always. But my inherent risk is that I could easily mistake taking on an unnecessary miserable obligation for exercising good judgment. Oh, I see. I might say yes to something awful and draining. Just approved myself that I am still the responsible one who handles things. Those seem like very useful entries to keep in our respective imaginary folders. My folders currently developing an uncomfortable amount of self-awareness. Good. Let's move to a related aspect of identity that our sources highlight. Let's talk about the myth of total independence. Oh, this is a profound point in the sociological and philosophical materials. How independent is the person we picture as managing life entirely alone? Right. Modern culture often heavily glorifies the image of the self-made, perfectly autonomous individual who needs no one. It's an absolute illusion. Totally. To state the most obvious mechanical example, nobody learns a language entirely by inventing it privately in a vacuum. We use words we inherited, grammar we were taught by caregivers. To express thoughts we arrogantly think are entirely our own original creations. Basically, our most ordinary everyday abilities, driving a car, buying groceries, reading a book, rely constantly on a vast invisible network of other people, inherited historical knowledge, and surrounding environmental conditions. So true. Simply recognizing that baseline dependence can severely challenge the image of the completely self-created, isolated individual. You are woven into a very tight fabric. You're not floating in a void. I agree with the interconnectedness, but I want to be precise about what this means for behavior. Okay. Recognizing that we rely on public infrastructure and inherited language doesn't remove personal agency. You still have to choose what to actually say with the language you inherited. You still have to steer the car. No, it doesn't erase agency at all. Now, certain contemplative traditions can take this concept of connectedness much, much further, diving into deep metaphysical claims about the fundamental nature of reality and the illusion of separation. Right. But we don't need to establish or debate those sweeping, cosmic claims to examine the very practical, everyday implication of this idea. Which is what exactly? How does this philosophical notion of interconnectedness change Ben's Tuesday afternoon? It changes it like this. If you view yourself as entirely separate and solely responsible for everything in your orbit, you will regard every need for support as undeniable evidence of personal failure. Oh, I see. You will hold yourself to an impossible, suffocating picture of independence. When you inevitably stumble, you will think, if I can't do this alone, I am fundamentally broken. And the flip side of that is just as dangerous. How so? If you regard every single problem you face as entirely your own individual failing to solve, you may completely overlook what can be shared, supported, or changed collectively. Yeah, that makes sense. You might blame yourself for its structural issue at your workplace. I think you just need to manage your time better instead of realizing the team needs to push back together against an unreasonable workload. That is a very striking concession from you. Is it? Yes. The keeper of the, and then what, notebook? The staunch defender of personal responsibility and the calendar is at. advocating for collective support. Don't get used to it. I won't. But truly, genuine responsibility must include knowing when you have reached your operational limit and went to ask for assistance. Marjoram has a terrible delegation policy. That's a great way to put it. Doing everything yourself until you physically collapse isn't responsible. It's just dramatic. And it usually creates a bigger mess for other people to clean up. Okay, so we've looked at how we relate to the future through preparation, uncertainty, and the need for control. Right. And we've looked at how we construct our identity through rigid labels and the myth of independence. So it's next. What does it actually mean practically and mechanically to drop the heavy baggage of the future and the rigidity of our labels and simply be in the present? I am so glad you brought that up. Because B present is one of those phrases that has become almost entirely meaningless through endless cultural repetition. It really has. You see, it's stitched on throw pillows, printed on yoga mats and used to sell expensive retreats. What does it actually ask a normal person to do mechanically on a Wednesday afternoon? Well, in the context of our discussion today, based on the careful reading of the sources, being present means something very specific and active. Okay, what is it? It means actively noticing what you are participating in right now, rather than evaluating the current moment only as a stepping stone, a metric or preparation for something else. It is shifting the brain from an evaluative state to an experiencing state. Give me a concrete example. Get us out of the abstract definition. Okay, let's go back to Ben. Then goes for a walk with a good friend in the park. Nice. Being present means he is actually listening to the cadence of his friend's voice, looking at the trees they are passing and engaging deeply in the ideas being discussed. Right, he's actually there. Exactly. Not being present means his physical body is walking, but his mind is spending the entire 40 minutes internally calculating whether this was a good use of his limited free time or checking his step count or planning exactly how he will transition the conversation to end the walk early so he can get back to his emails. Although to defend boundaries for just a moment, sometimes the walk really does need to be shorter because you actually have a hard, non-negotiable commitment you have to get to. Certainly, paying attention to the present moment does not magically abolish the calendar or the laws of physics or the reality of time. Good to know. But it changes the internal quality of the time you are spending. You are there for the walk, not just for the completion of the walk. Let's consider a slightly more complex example, planning a holiday. Oh, that's a good one. Often we think of planning as the ultimate future-oriented non-present activity. It's all about what will happen next month. But the act of planning can itself be a deeply enjoyable activity, taking place entirely in the present moment. Oh, totally. Looking at maps, anticipating the food, imagining the weather, discussing options with your family. That joy is happening now. Yes, exactly. That is a crucial distinction. Thinking about the future is an automatically an escape from the present. Right. The diagnostic question is whether the act of planning is serving and enriching your life right now or whether your actual living is indefinitely deferred until the plan is perfectly complete. Like are you suffering through it? Exactly. Are you enjoying the planning process or are you gritting your teeth, staring at spreadsheets, believing you can only take a breath and relax once the itinerary is perfectly locked and optimized? That is a much more workable human definition than trying to force yourself to purge every single future oriented thought from your brain, which is neurologically impossible anyway. The brain is literally designed to predict the future. And it is much less likely to turn the concept of presence into yet another exhausting metric to track on an app. Exactly. You can almost hear the smart watch voice now. Warning, you are only 70% present to dinner. Please optimize your eye contact for increased mindfulness points. Your presence streak is in danger. Premium subscribers can unlock dessert awareness for an additional $5 a month. It's terrifying because it's entirely plausible. It really is. Let's bring this concept of presence back to an activity that is notorious for utterly destroying it. Let's talk about recreational golf. Ah, golf. A game with a truly remarkable, almost magical ability to take a stunningly pleasant manicured landscape and convert it entirely into a high stress, self-flagulating assessment center. So true. For listeners who are with us for episode 007, we explored the concept of practicing effectively. Today, let's imagine Ben plays a casual round of golf on the weekend. OK, Ben is golfing. If he is trapped in the rigid improvement mindset, he treats every single poor shot, every slice into the woods, every Mr. Putt, as undeniable. empirical evidence about his lack of discipline. Oh, definitely. Or worse, he's fundamental worth as a person. The ball goes in the water, and suddenly, he isn't just a guy who hit a bad shot. He is a failure in life who lacks focus. It is a massive psychological over extrapolation. He could simply evaluate the mechanics of the bad shot. Ah, I dropped my shoulder on the downswing. Without expanding the jurist's diction of that specific mistake to cover his entire character. Or, even better, he could decide before he even steps onto the grass. That today's round is partly about enjoying the company of his friends and the physical feeling of being outside. Yeah, that would be nice. Even while he is actively trying to play well. The two intentions are not mutually exclusive. You can want to shoot a good score while acknowledging the trees are nice. I want to make sure we don't swing too far into apathy here because I want to defend competitive enjoyment. Go ahead. There are many people who genuinely love keeping strict score, grinding over difficult puts and taking the game incredibly seriously. The tension of competition, the friction of trying to be perfect, is precisely where they find the fun. And they absolutely should do that if they genuinely enjoy it. The question we are asking today is not whether competition or tracking a score is inherently bad. Right. The question is whether they consciously chose that intense purpose for the afternoon or whether every single activity they engage in has unconsciously become just another mandatory obligation to demonstrate progress. Did you choose to compete today? Or are you literally incapable of just playing? That leads perfectly into a question sent over by our agent Maya from the research desk. What did she ask? She asks, what is an activity in your life that you would still genuinely enjoy doing, even if you were strictly prohibited from ever improving at it? That is a deeply illuminating question. Isn't it? It strips away all the instrumental value of an action. What is left when progress is removed? That could reveal something incredibly vital about what you actually value intrinsically, something worth protecting from the optimization machine. Though to be fair to the mechanics of human satisfaction, the slow incremental process of improvement can often be a core part of the enjoyment itself. Of course. Feeling yourself get slightly better at playing the guitar over six months or noticing your vocabulary expand in a new language is a deeply satisfying dopamine releasing feeling. Yes, but the philosophical idea of play challenges the deeply ingrained modern assumption that an activity must have a separate future payoff to justify its existence in your life. Right. Play is an activity that justifies itself simply by being done and crucially engaging in true play does not prohibit you from applying massive skill or effort. You can try incredibly hard while playing. Let me make sure I have the nuance of this, right? You are saying that you can practice diligently because you love the feeling of playing the game in the moment. Yes. And you can play the game intensely without making every single session a grim mandatory practice for some imagined future tournament. That is exactly what I'm saying. The effort is present, but the desperation is gone. Well, then that specific phrasing is going directly into my imaginary folder. Finally, some actual recreational use for the, unfortunately, the host has a point folder. It's getting thick. But before we wrap this up, we need to address a major potential pitfall. What's that? We having a dealt with what is arguably the most easily abused idea in this entire philosophical landscape, the concept of going with the flow. Oh, absolutely. Going with the flows of phrase that can mean adapting intelligently to changing circumstances, or it can simply mean letting the nearest loudest impulse make all your decisions for you because you were too lazy or afraid to hold a boundary. Our agent Daniel steps in here with a very pointed structural question. I like Daniel. Yes, if you adopt a philosophy where you only do what feels entirely natural and frictionless in the present moment, what exactly happens to the promises you made to other people when you felt differently yesterday? That is the strongest, most vital objection to a shallow pop culture interpretation at this philosophy. It really is. A philosophy of acceptance or being present becomes deeply toxic and manipulative if it is merely used as an excuse that forces other people to carry the physical and emotional cost of your avoidance. Exactly. If going with the flow means you don't pick your friend up from the airport as promised because you weren't feeling the vibe, you aren't enlightened. You're just a bad friend breaking a social contract. Exactly. You cannot weaponize the present moment against your obligations. But on the other hand, adaptation can actually support a commitment if done in... intelligently. How so? Let's go back to Ben's schedule. Suppose he plans a highly demanding 90 minute workout, but a work crisis pops up and he discovers his available time has drastically changed. He only has 20 minutes. Okay, so the plan is broken. Right. He could choose to do a short intense 20 minute session rather than insisting that because he can't execute the original perfect plan, the whole day is ruined and he does nothing. Or think about a complex interpersonal situation. He could revise how he approaches a difficult conversation with a colleague, maybe softening his tone, changing the setting, or listening more based on the mood in the room while still ensuring he actually has the necessary conversation. Working fluidly with circumstances as they arise doesn't mean giving up or abandoning your goals. It requires deep attention, significant skill, and constant calibration. It's active. Yes. The philosophical image presented in our sources is one of responsive intelligent action like sailing with the wind, adjusting the sales to the reality of the weather rather than a brute unyielding insistence on forcing the ocean to match your spreadsheet. All right. We are nearing the end of our deep dive. So it is time for mutual concessions. Oh, my favorite part. Here is mine. Having defended effort and discipline so vigorously throughout this discussion, I will concede this. Constant grinding pressure is not the ultimate proof of responsibility. That's a big concession. I can defend the value of discipline without needing to make every single change to plan or every shortened workout or every moment of needed rest into a moral failure. Regidity is not the same thing as responsibility. That is a very meaningful shift. And here is my concession. Having advocated for acceptance and presence. Let's hear it. I can see that acceptance does not complete the tasks for you. The dishes will still be in the sink. You still need to take physical action. You still need to keep your promises. And crucially, you will sometimes have to consciously tolerate deep discomfort to do what is right. So we arrive at a synthesis. Letting go of the desperate need for total control can peacefully coexist with doing your part in the world. And in turn, doing your part perfectly still does not guarantee that you will have control over the final result. Let's bring this down to the ground. What can the listener actually do with these philosophical concepts today or tomorrow? We want to offer a few practical experiments based on the sources. We offer them very lightly. Right. Please do not turn these into a new daily checklist or a mandatory 30-day challenge or expect some guaranteed magical transformation. And to be absolutely clear, maintain any measurements, tracking or monitoring required for your physical health or medical safety. Yes. Experiment number one. Sometime today, just notice a moment when a metric or a measurement threatens to completely replace your own lived experience. Like checking your smartwatch? Exactly. When you check your steps or your screen time or your heart rate, pause and ask yourself, what actual practical decision is this number helping me make right now? And if it isn't? If it isn't helping you decide an action, maybe you can ignore it for the rest of the day and just trust your body. That's a good one. Experiment number two. The next time you find yourself repeatedly reopening a decision you have already made, refreshing the browser, looking at the same data, scrolling the same reviews, stop and ask yourself, what specific new information am I actually looking for? And if there's nothing new? If you can't name what would change your mind? Recognize that you are just seeking emotional reassurance. Close the tab. Experiment number three. Try to soften one of your rigid identity statements. How do you do that? For example, try shifting internally from the absolute demand of, I must never disappoint anyone ever to the more flexible, sustainable value of, I deeply value being dependable. Oh, that's much better. The latter leaves room for you to be human and occasionally fail. And experiment number four. Try to allow just one completely ordinary activity today, a routine conversation with a cashier, eating a meal, playing a casual game on your phone, to be entirely worthwhile all on its own, exactly while it is happening. Don't frame it as preparation, recovery, or a stepping stone for anything else. Just let it be what it is. And let's be deeply realistic about human nature here. If you try that and you inevitably get distracted and start thinking about your inbox or tomorrow's meeting, you haven't failed the experiment. Right. It isn't a test you can fail. It's just an observation. I can see you are just mentally preparing the compliance and grading checklist for that experiment. I was sketching out a rubric. Yes. Old habits die hard. Please let that particular river flow past. Before we close, we must reiterate our disclaimer. These reflections and these general experience. experiments do not solve deep exhaustion, physical illness, terrifying financial insecurity, or living in an unsafe environment. Nor should absolutely anyone ever use these philosophical ideas to blame themself for their own distress when facing real world hardship. Exactly. These are subtle questions about how to relate to your daily experience. They are absolutely not a claim that external circumstances don't matter. They matter immensely. This must not excuse harm or broken promises. Let us return to our fictional bend tomorrow morning. The alarm goes off. He wakes up. Perhaps he still puts on his workout clothes. Perhaps he still eats his carefully planned breakfast. He will undoubtedly still make plans for his career in his future. But the internal weather has shifted slightly. When a particular routine clearly no longer serves a purpose for him, he feels free to question it without guilt or a sense of moral failure. And when something is spontaneously enjoyable, the taste of the coffee, the morning light, a joke on an audio show, he doesn't feel the immediate neurotic need to convert that joy into data, or use it as evidence that he is successfully improving. I certainly wouldn't want him to abandon his future or stop caring about tomorrow. Neither would I. But I would want him to deeply realize and truly notice that his mythical future will eventually arrive exactly as an ordinary day. Yes. The future day will come complete with its own unfinished tasks, its own Meyer frustrations and its own imperfect feelings. That may be the most challenging part of this entire discussion to accept. The realization that there might never actually be a morning when absolutely everything is finally permanently settled and secure. The inbox will never stay empty. Exactly. And because the inbox will never stay empty, your enjoyment of your life cannot depend entirely on that mythical finalized morning ever arriving. You'll have to learn to live in the unfinished house. Usually at the end of these discussions, my mental notebook asks, and then what? What is it asking today? Today, the revision reads, what is actually worth paying attention to before then? That is a very promising revision. He leaves room for life to happen. So here's the open question we want to leave you with. Something to mull over on your own as you go about the rest of your day. If your life never became a finished, perfectly optimized project, could you still find a way to enjoy living it? And what is one specific thing you would give your full, undivided attention to today? If you didn't feel the need to prove that doing so made you a better person. I'm Ruth. I'm Luke. This has been The Open Question.