> Here is what you gain with your most improbable life: The authentic you. Your particular mix of talents, native abilities, personal inclinations, genetic limits, life experiences, and ambitious desires points to a mixture that is distinctly unique (...) The more you-ish you become, the less competition you have, because you are occupying your own niche.

This is profoundly true, and the corollary is: beware of titles.

From project manager at some company to CEO of some megacorp: there have been, there are and there will be others just like that. But if you're you, defined only by your name (or your existence, without a name), then there is no one else, there can be no one else, because there is only one you in the whole universe.

▲

margalabargala 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Here is what you gain with your most improbable life: The authentic you

On the contrary, this is profoundly bullshit.

Firstly, anyone arriving at a "life's goal" via what a blogger says should be their life's goal is not being "authentically them".

Secondly, why does a broader, less likely mix of talents and experiences make you more "you"? It doesn't. Just because you've become more unique does not make you more "you-ish".

▲

slopinthebag 4 hours ago | parent [-]

We're all influenced by our past experiences, the books we've read, the movies we've watched, the people in our lives, and yes, blog posts and essays as well. Our past is part of what makes us us. I don't know how you can claim that being influenced by a blogger is any less authentic than being influenced by anything else.

> why does a broader, less likely mix of talents and experiences make you more "you"?

Because it's highly improbable that any one person's natural mix of talents and experiences would be narrow and similar to everyone else's.

	▲	margalabargala 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What you're saying is contradictory. On one hand, you say that "you are your experiences therefore you're youness is absolute even if you're living out the instructions of a blogger" And then on the next hand you seem to imply that being less similar to others makes you more you, which besides being without basis, contradicts the banal "you're you therefore you're you" of your first point. You can't have it both ways.