> Your life’s goal should be to become the most improbable person you can be.

Your life's goal should not be dictated by Substack philosophers.

> 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 – if it is allowed to blossom. The further you move in that direction, the more you-like you become.

The West's obsession with "self-help" is built on convincing individuals that they are special but not living up to their special-ness. It then demands they do things to realize their special-ness.

The premise is that realization, fulfillment and happiness are only accessible if you do things you're not naturally inclined to do. Which begs the question: are you being the "authentic you" if you are following a path laid out by someone else?

> Finally, the less predictable you are, the less likely you are to be replaced by AIs. Machines are efficient, and they are powered by the predictable. Current LLMs are trained to generate the most predictable solution. So far they are not very good at duplicating what a creative, one-of-a-kind improbable human can produce. To distance yourself from the machines, aim to be as improbable as you can be.

Tell this to all the creatives who are being disrupted by AI that has, in many cases, been trained on their content.

The next level of realization is that every path you've been following your entire life has been laid out by someone else, or chosen due to the value system imparted by someone else, so there's not really an authentic "you" in the way that people like to believe.

Society strongly rewards predictability. If I try to minimize predictability of my actions I will very quickly be hit by a car and die. Similar outcomes should be expected in most other areas of life. Stop predictably paying your bills and delivering value…

Individualism in the west pretends to value uniqueness, but in practice it values belonging to sollte specific subgroup of consumers and avoiding solidarity with your fellow workers.

This is, quite obviously, just one person's perspective on life. But it's a call to action, so let me ask you this: what do you propose?

From your response, I see two takeaways: don't try to be creative because this only helps AI, and don't be spontaneous because the society wouldn't want you to. Is that it, or is there more? To be clear, I'm not trying to be overly snarky, but we don't get the option of doing nothing. If you don't like what this person is selling, what's your trick?

> Your life's goal should not be dictated by Substack philosophers.

So you’re suggesting that some philosophers/ideas are “special” while random writers on Substack are not. Immediately contradicts the spirit of your next criticism:

> The West's obsession with "self-help" is built on convincing individuals that they are special but not living up to their special-ness … Which begs the question: are you being the "authentic you" if you are following a path laid out by someone else?

So YOU are special after all? “Someone else on Substack” is wrong but I am right? Why should I listen to you?

I get where you are coming from but it isn't really about telling people they are special and they need to be more to be happy. But rather, you should seek change and enthropy in life to truly experience it. For someone that's stuck and looking for help (for their selves) will likely see it as a way to at least take some action to orient themselves towards the life they want.

The complete opposite view (i guess non western since you said it was western) would be to do nothing everyday and just be content and happy without ever doing anything to change your life. That is obviously not a great way to experience life as well.

Laslty, them saying you being unique will keep you save from AI replacement is pretty stupid genuinely and cannot be defended. It's a bit too hopefuly to think people deciding on layoffs and automation with AI give a single fuck about how special or interesting you care. You think Larry Ellison cares?

> Your life's goal should not be dictated by Substack philosophers.

Dictate? The only expectation is readers consider ideas.

You made some good points about "self-help". I don't fully agree, but you gave me something to think about.

The essay struck me very directly. I have made unusual career choices, and beyond or because of that, life has changed in unimagined ways every five years of my adult life. Improbable paths to improbable destinations. I do feel like it has left me in a unique position, amidst all the upheavals.

I don't understand the urge to diminish individualism when it's the basis of our modern ethics and human rights. It's not that people are "special", it's that people are unique and not just a statistic, or a member of a group, or a means to an end. It's not about "living up to their special-ness" but about realising their potential as a human being.

The article is basically just an argument for one method towards achieving self-actualizition, the process of fulfilling one's unique potential and becoming the most authentic version of oneself. It reminds me a bit of Walt Whitmans's "Song of Myself" in which he writes

> The past and present wilt--I have fill'd them, emptied them. And proceed to fill my next fold of the future.

> Listener up there! what have you to confide to me? Look in my face while I snuff the sidle of evening, (Talk honestly, no one else hears you, and I stay only a minute longer.)

> Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Be improbable! Contradict yourself! Be complicated! Be shocking! Live your life, ya know.

[dead]

So, you liked nothing about the post ? What would you salvage from it ?