> 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.
"If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist, it’s another nonconformist who doesn’t conform to the prevailing standard of nonconformity." - Bill Vaughan
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?
It sounds to me like their "trick" is simply not acting from the psychological position that you need to do something you're not doing in order to realize your authentic or best self. Wu wei?
just... be creative when you have something creative to express and the expression brings you joy, happiness, satisfaction, or any other reward of your choice. be spontaneous for similar reasons. don't do it because someone has attached an artificial "you are now leading your best life" reward to the mere fact of creativity or spontaneity - that's just reactive.
truly authentic creativity and spontaneity would leave room for conformity if that's what made you happiest in the moment, because why should the fact that everyone else also does something prevent it from being a worthwhile thing for you personally to do?
Why does parent need to propose anything? Perhaps, in the absence of any external authoritative instructions to the contrary, our purpose is for each of us to discover our own purpose and realise it. Why should parent (or anyone else) have a “trick”, and if they did why would it be applicable to anyone else?
> 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.
> I don't understand the urge to diminish individualism when it's the basis of our modern ethics and human rights.
Where did I diminish individualism? The point I made was that, perhaps, you don't need someone else telling you that you're not being yourself and not living up to your potential, and then offering you a path you weren't naturally inclined to take to get to where they tell you you're supposed to be.
> 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.
And this is a very Western concept that doesn't resonate with me. I don't believe that the average person needs to be obsessed with fulfilling their potential and becoming "authentic", especially to the point where they rely on the advice of random people who are eager to tell them they're not fulfilling their potential and being "authentic".
To quote George Carlin:
> If you're looking for self-help, why would you read a book written by somebody else? That's not self-help, that's help. There's no such thing as self-help. If you did it yourself you didn't need help.
> you don't need someone else telling you that you're not being yourself and not living up to your potential, and then offering you a path you weren't naturally inclined to take to get to where they tell you you're supposed to be
Who is doing that?
The average person probably doesn't need to be "obsessed" with self-actualisation or authenticity, but that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile goal. People don't need to be "obsessed" with eating healthy, but they should at least consider it.
Carlin's quote is cute but just a debate about semantics. Who cares what they're called. People learn from books, they learn from other peoples experiences, and they can use that learning to help themselves. How is that not valid?
> Your life’s goal should be to become the most improbable person you can be. Your path, your character, your life, should be the most unlikely, the most unexpected, the least predictable version you can make. Improbable lives have fewer competitors, more unique rewards, and are harder to replace with AIs, since AIs run on the predictable.
> You can align yourself with this grand arc moving from the expected to the unexpected and aim to become the most improbable person you can be.
And so on.
From the very first sentence, the author is telling you what you should be and do. There is nothing in the post that asks the question of what the reader actually wants to be and do.
What if I want to be a part of a community, meet someone I can build a life with, raise a family, and have a job that allows me to support my family and engage in simple activities I enjoy?
How does someone telling me I should become "the most improbable person" I can be help me? How does minimizing my "competitors", obtaining "unique rewards" and trying to make myself AI-proof align to building community, finding a compatible partner, raising happy children, and finding work that supports the life I want to live?
> People don't need to be "obsessed" with eating healthy, but they should at least consider it.
Many people do eat healthy without buying a bookshelf full of books about how to eat a healthy diet.
> People learn from books, they learn from other peoples experiences, and they can use that learning to help themselves.
There is a difference between learning from other people's experiences where their experiences resonate with you and seeking out advice from people who are trying to sell you on a life they say you should have.
Huh. The post in effect is about a choice of one's career, about what one offers to the world. Of course the execution of the chosen career must remain flawless.
One must develop one's own unique offering. Don't let the world trap you in its box.
I came across a bus driver today that told me he owned a juice bar on the side, and invited me to visit. I thought this was most unexpected. This didn't make him a bad driver. His driving was fine. The point is that even a bus driver can live up to the author's ideal.
Sadly people are fulfilling the very probable nerd stereotype of aggressively misunderstanding philosophy and then trashing on it. I'm not sure how someone could even come to the conclusion that living an improbable life = swerving into oncoming traffic, but here we are.
With all due respect to Kevin Kelly (who has lived a life worthy of the aphorisms he writes!), I prefer the guidance of George Saunders (via Lincoln in the Bardo):
> Please do not misunderstand. We had been mothers, fathers. Had been husbands of many years, men of import, who had come here, that first day, accompanied by crowds so vast and sorrowful that, surging forward to hear the oration, they had damaged fences beyond repair. Had been young wives, diverted here during childbirth, our gentle qualities stripped from us by the naked pain of that circumstance, who left behind husbands so enamored of us, so tormented by the horror of those last moments (the notion that we had gone down that awful black hole pain-sundered from ourselves) that they had never loved again. Had been bulky men, quietly content, who, in our first youth, had come to grasp our own unremarkableness and had, cheerfully (as if bemusedly accepting a heavy burden), shifted our life’s focus; if we would not be great, we would be useful; would be rich, and kind, and thereby able to effect good: smiling, hands in pockets, watching the world we had subtly improved walking past (this empty dowry filled; that education secretly funded). Had been affable, joking servants, of whom our masters had grown fond for the cheering words we managed as they launched forth on days full of import. Had been grandmothers, tolerant and frank, recipients of certain dark secrets,who, by the quality of their unjudging listening, granted tacit forgiveness, and thus let in the sun. What I mean to say is, we had been considerable. Had been loved. Not lonely, not lost, not freakish, but wise, each in his or her own way. Our departures caused pain. Those who had loved us sat upon their beds, heads in hand; lowered their faces to tabletops, making animal noises. We had been loved, I say, and remembering us, even many years later, people would smile, briefly gladdened at the memory.
At one point in my life I came to an epiphany on this topic. Everybody's life is improbable. Literally everybody, all the time, without any effort.
Through the lens of this I saw myself as being the type of person who looks at things in life through averages, sizing up what's likely, and I realized that in my own story there were a lot of very improbable occurrences. Even if we understand statistics, we shouldn't let our knowledge of what's likely or most common get in the way of appreciation this uniqueness, or cloud our view of it. I took this observation to mean to be less judgemental, less the type to want to size something up and put it in a statistical bucket.
> 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.
> 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".
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.
Is exotropy really the opposite of entropy? I was glad to stumble upon this word, but on searching the internet, it does not seem to be. Could someone informed shed some light on the matter?
how about normalizing being generic (you don't need to be a Cervantes or a Joyce to write a book people enjoy) by burning down AI servers? or boycotting these techs. OP types like it's easy to stand out of a ever growing nation of 8 billion people and that people aren't satified with the generic. take a look at the most popular music hits worldwide... 12-edo, mostly harmonic stuff having C
you should build your uniqueness to help humanity and not stand out because you like to shine over the others
> But it can be even more improbable. You can align yourself with this grand arc moving from the expected to the unexpected and aim to become the most improbable person you can be.
Also reminds me of the social media trend for “don’t let them predict your next move”
I wonder what an improbable version of this post would look like. This was very predictable given the first few sentences. I think self-help inspiration like this works better by helping you see the wonder in the mundane rather than painting a big picture of how you're going to be Neo and break out of the matrix everyone else is trapped inside, one that will fade within a minutes. It's a superpower to experience novelty in everyday things.
I don't find it surprising that people here are reading this completely literally (eg. I'll be hit by a car with erratic movement), or approaching it as if the author is suggesting we have a god complex (eg. painting a big picture of how you're going to be Neo). But it is a bit disappointing. Have LLMs ruined our ability to think abstractly?
It's practically a trope that taking the common, average path in life is not for everyone. If I wrote an article suggesting that not everyone will achieve self-actualisation by going to university at 18, getting a degree, entering the work force, buying a house, getting married, having kids, and retiring at 65, nobody would bat an eye. The author is basically making this argument in a slightly novel way. Living your life by choosing the average of all decisions will, for a lot of people, lead to a boring and meaningless life. I reckon for most people it would be substandard. Instead, do things which are not common or average or expected of you. It's advice that's practically as old as time, packaged up in a slightly different way.
Maximizing improbability means spouting gibberish 24/7 and flopping around uncontrollably. Very unpredictable.
More seriously, I don't see how "improbable" is what you should maximize. If you come from a certain background, ending up in prison as a murderer may be more improbable than countless good lives you could lead.
The part about the 'four weapons of an improbable person' really gave me the push to challenge myself again, especially today when I was being so hard on myself for a day with no visible results. I deeply resonate with the idea that our ultimate vision moving forward should be to become the most unpredictable and unique versions of ourselves.
Growing up in a hyper-competitive society, I feel like I’ve spent my whole life constantly comparing myself to those around me, or even to complete strangers just to survive. Because of that, up until now, I think I’ve only ever been an incomplete version of 'me.' Thank you for sharing such a powerful piece.
> 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.
I realised this in 2006 when I committed the faux pas of wearing a cerulean blue sweater to a screening of The Devil Wears Prada.
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.
"If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist, it’s another nonconformist who doesn’t conform to the prevailing standard of nonconformity." - Bill Vaughan
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?
It sounds to me like their "trick" is simply not acting from the psychological position that you need to do something you're not doing in order to realize your authentic or best self. Wu wei?
Exactly. 無為
just... be creative when you have something creative to express and the expression brings you joy, happiness, satisfaction, or any other reward of your choice. be spontaneous for similar reasons. don't do it because someone has attached an artificial "you are now leading your best life" reward to the mere fact of creativity or spontaneity - that's just reactive.
truly authentic creativity and spontaneity would leave room for conformity if that's what made you happiest in the moment, because why should the fact that everyone else also does something prevent it from being a worthwhile thing for you personally to do?
Why does parent need to propose anything? Perhaps, in the absence of any external authoritative instructions to the contrary, our purpose is for each of us to discover our own purpose and realise it. Why should parent (or anyone else) have a “trick”, and if they did why would it be applicable to anyone else?
> 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.
> Dictate? What an inhospitable straw man/false dichotomy.
The first sentence of the article is "Your life’s goal should be to become the most improbable person you can be."
It is literally telling you what you should do.
“Improbable paths to improbable destinations.”
As someone that’s recently turned 60, your last paragraph resonates intensely. I am so, so far from the life I predicted for myself at age 25.
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.
> I don't understand the urge to diminish individualism when it's the basis of our modern ethics and human rights.
Where did I diminish individualism? The point I made was that, perhaps, you don't need someone else telling you that you're not being yourself and not living up to your potential, and then offering you a path you weren't naturally inclined to take to get to where they tell you you're supposed to be.
> 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.
And this is a very Western concept that doesn't resonate with me. I don't believe that the average person needs to be obsessed with fulfilling their potential and becoming "authentic", especially to the point where they rely on the advice of random people who are eager to tell them they're not fulfilling their potential and being "authentic".
To quote George Carlin:
> If you're looking for self-help, why would you read a book written by somebody else? That's not self-help, that's help. There's no such thing as self-help. If you did it yourself you didn't need help.
> you don't need someone else telling you that you're not being yourself and not living up to your potential, and then offering you a path you weren't naturally inclined to take to get to where they tell you you're supposed to be
Who is doing that?
The average person probably doesn't need to be "obsessed" with self-actualisation or authenticity, but that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile goal. People don't need to be "obsessed" with eating healthy, but they should at least consider it.
Carlin's quote is cute but just a debate about semantics. Who cares what they're called. People learn from books, they learn from other peoples experiences, and they can use that learning to help themselves. How is that not valid?
> Who is doing that?
The author of the post:
> Your life’s goal should be to become the most improbable person you can be. Your path, your character, your life, should be the most unlikely, the most unexpected, the least predictable version you can make. Improbable lives have fewer competitors, more unique rewards, and are harder to replace with AIs, since AIs run on the predictable.
> You can align yourself with this grand arc moving from the expected to the unexpected and aim to become the most improbable person you can be.
And so on.
From the very first sentence, the author is telling you what you should be and do. There is nothing in the post that asks the question of what the reader actually wants to be and do.
What if I want to be a part of a community, meet someone I can build a life with, raise a family, and have a job that allows me to support my family and engage in simple activities I enjoy?
How does someone telling me I should become "the most improbable person" I can be help me? How does minimizing my "competitors", obtaining "unique rewards" and trying to make myself AI-proof align to building community, finding a compatible partner, raising happy children, and finding work that supports the life I want to live?
> People don't need to be "obsessed" with eating healthy, but they should at least consider it.
Many people do eat healthy without buying a bookshelf full of books about how to eat a healthy diet.
> People learn from books, they learn from other peoples experiences, and they can use that learning to help themselves.
There is a difference between learning from other people's experiences where their experiences resonate with you and seeking out advice from people who are trying to sell you on a life they say you should have.
So, you liked nothing about the post ? What would you salvage from it ?
Well, let's start with the second sentence:
> Your path, your character, your life, should be the most unlikely, the most unexpected, the least predictable version you can make.
Now, I ask you, is that really what I want from my kid's school bus driver?
Huh. The post in effect is about a choice of one's career, about what one offers to the world. Of course the execution of the chosen career must remain flawless.
One must develop one's own unique offering. Don't let the world trap you in its box.
I came across a bus driver today that told me he owned a juice bar on the side, and invited me to visit. I thought this was most unexpected. This didn't make him a bad driver. His driving was fine. The point is that even a bus driver can live up to the author's ideal.
Sadly people are fulfilling the very probable nerd stereotype of aggressively misunderstanding philosophy and then trashing on it. I'm not sure how someone could even come to the conclusion that living an improbable life = swerving into oncoming traffic, but here we are.
"Luke Rhinehart"'s The Dice Man isn't the stagecoach of life I should be riding?
Damn.
Are we required to like something and report on that?
With all due respect to Kevin Kelly (who has lived a life worthy of the aphorisms he writes!), I prefer the guidance of George Saunders (via Lincoln in the Bardo):
> Please do not misunderstand. We had been mothers, fathers. Had been husbands of many years, men of import, who had come here, that first day, accompanied by crowds so vast and sorrowful that, surging forward to hear the oration, they had damaged fences beyond repair. Had been young wives, diverted here during childbirth, our gentle qualities stripped from us by the naked pain of that circumstance, who left behind husbands so enamored of us, so tormented by the horror of those last moments (the notion that we had gone down that awful black hole pain-sundered from ourselves) that they had never loved again. Had been bulky men, quietly content, who, in our first youth, had come to grasp our own unremarkableness and had, cheerfully (as if bemusedly accepting a heavy burden), shifted our life’s focus; if we would not be great, we would be useful; would be rich, and kind, and thereby able to effect good: smiling, hands in pockets, watching the world we had subtly improved walking past (this empty dowry filled; that education secretly funded). Had been affable, joking servants, of whom our masters had grown fond for the cheering words we managed as they launched forth on days full of import. Had been grandmothers, tolerant and frank, recipients of certain dark secrets,who, by the quality of their unjudging listening, granted tacit forgiveness, and thus let in the sun. What I mean to say is, we had been considerable. Had been loved. Not lonely, not lost, not freakish, but wise, each in his or her own way. Our departures caused pain. Those who had loved us sat upon their beds, heads in hand; lowered their faces to tabletops, making animal noises. We had been loved, I say, and remembering us, even many years later, people would smile, briefly gladdened at the memory.
I found this hard to read.
At one point in my life I came to an epiphany on this topic. Everybody's life is improbable. Literally everybody, all the time, without any effort.
Through the lens of this I saw myself as being the type of person who looks at things in life through averages, sizing up what's likely, and I realized that in my own story there were a lot of very improbable occurrences. Even if we understand statistics, we shouldn't let our knowledge of what's likely or most common get in the way of appreciation this uniqueness, or cloud our view of it. I took this observation to mean to be less judgemental, less the type to want to size something up and put it in a statistical bucket.
> 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.
> 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".
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.
Is exotropy really the opposite of entropy? I was glad to stumble upon this word, but on searching the internet, it does not seem to be. Could someone informed shed some light on the matter?
how about normalizing being generic (you don't need to be a Cervantes or a Joyce to write a book people enjoy) by burning down AI servers? or boycotting these techs. OP types like it's easy to stand out of a ever growing nation of 8 billion people and that people aren't satified with the generic. take a look at the most popular music hits worldwide... 12-edo, mostly harmonic stuff having C
you should build your uniqueness to help humanity and not stand out because you like to shine over the others
> But it can be even more improbable. You can align yourself with this grand arc moving from the expected to the unexpected and aim to become the most improbable person you can be.
Also reminds me of the social media trend for “don’t let them predict your next move”
I wonder what an improbable version of this post would look like. This was very predictable given the first few sentences. I think self-help inspiration like this works better by helping you see the wonder in the mundane rather than painting a big picture of how you're going to be Neo and break out of the matrix everyone else is trapped inside, one that will fade within a minutes. It's a superpower to experience novelty in everyday things.
The mentions of "AI" are jarring and stupid. This will not age well.
I don't find it surprising that people here are reading this completely literally (eg. I'll be hit by a car with erratic movement), or approaching it as if the author is suggesting we have a god complex (eg. painting a big picture of how you're going to be Neo). But it is a bit disappointing. Have LLMs ruined our ability to think abstractly?
It's practically a trope that taking the common, average path in life is not for everyone. If I wrote an article suggesting that not everyone will achieve self-actualisation by going to university at 18, getting a degree, entering the work force, buying a house, getting married, having kids, and retiring at 65, nobody would bat an eye. The author is basically making this argument in a slightly novel way. Living your life by choosing the average of all decisions will, for a lot of people, lead to a boring and meaningless life. I reckon for most people it would be substandard. Instead, do things which are not common or average or expected of you. It's advice that's practically as old as time, packaged up in a slightly different way.
Maximizing improbability means spouting gibberish 24/7 and flopping around uncontrollably. Very unpredictable.
More seriously, I don't see how "improbable" is what you should maximize. If you come from a certain background, ending up in prison as a murderer may be more improbable than countless good lives you could lead.
The part about the 'four weapons of an improbable person' really gave me the push to challenge myself again, especially today when I was being so hard on myself for a day with no visible results. I deeply resonate with the idea that our ultimate vision moving forward should be to become the most unpredictable and unique versions of ourselves.
Growing up in a hyper-competitive society, I feel like I’ve spent my whole life constantly comparing myself to those around me, or even to complete strangers just to survive. Because of that, up until now, I think I’ve only ever been an incomplete version of 'me.' Thank you for sharing such a powerful piece.