At the risk of being downvoted to oblivion: So many words, such little essence.
I feel like the author is trying to merge two un-mergable paradigms at the same time: that we are all dynamic, as in, we are what we want - and our "wants" are changing - and that we should stay constant in order to achieve being content, fulfilled.
> The conflict is a sign that different parts of you want different things, and you have what best satisfies the most important part of you.
Like, well, that is quite a plain observation, but the article does fundamentally not go beyond paraphrasing said observation - unfortunately. It would have been refreshing to read about a systematic attempt to break the emotional tie which is embedded in these situations in real life.
I am genuinely surprised the HN crowd has not commented/ provided insight on this conundrum given that the propensity to take decisions while facing conflicting values should be higher than in the average population.
I feel like the author is trying to merge two un-mergable paradigms at the same time: that we are all dynamic, as in, we are what we want - and our "wants" are changing - and that we should stay constant in order to achieve being content, fulfilled.
> The conflict is a sign that different parts of you want different things, and you have what best satisfies the most important part of you.
Like, well, that is quite a plain observation, but the article does fundamentally not go beyond paraphrasing said observation - unfortunately. It would have been refreshing to read about a systematic attempt to break the emotional tie which is embedded in these situations in real life.
I am genuinely surprised the HN crowd has not commented/ provided insight on this conundrum given that the propensity to take decisions while facing conflicting values should be higher than in the average population.