10d • 全│GENERAL
A Reflection On Hell Week
In an earlier chat log under my Hell Week 2.0 consistency tracker, I mentioned an idea I find to be deeply important, an idea that only occurred to me during this most recent Hell Week. Previously, I approached the many challenges I faced as if they were simply vehicles to transport me towards a vague notion of "progress", an idea deeply rooted in the material side of self-improving. Come this most recent HW, I realized that while these various challenges engage you towards greater heights, they must also be treated as a way to define what you wish those heights to be. A fellow member of this community, Benjamin, raised the idea of "potential" being intertwined with this, and I find that, incorporating this concept, there is more to be seen and said about my previous ideas. To sum up the collective discussion brought up, I would say this: That which pushes you to your limits is, in truth, an opportunity given to you to understand both your potential and your vision for it.
As I promised in an earlier post, I'll give some details on my project on day 6 of HW. If you could, please give your thoughts on my hypothesis as well as some ideas on the methodology I might use to test it. (This will be a bit wordy, so please bear with me)
The main idea that I propose is that when one's actual self aligns with another's preconceptions, there is a higher degree of social comfort than if that person were to have clashing external and internal worlds. This is primarily based on reported speeds at which we judge people (1/10th of a second to 7 seconds), as well as the psychological phenomena known as cognitive dissonance. Although cognitive dissonance is typically treated as an internal mechanism, it may also have implications within the external, social world. (I don't just propose that people may feel discomfort due to clashing evidence, but also that people may feel comfort if their evaluation is correct)
An example of this theoretical "discomfort" may be told through this example:
Person A looks like a meathead. Person B, seeing this, approaches person A. Person B is then shocked to find that person A is, in fact, incredibly intelligent. Person B is slightly uncomfortable due to this difference. (Conversely, if person A was actually stupid, then person B would be more gratified at the accuracy of their assessment, and therefore more comfortable).
If this hypothesis holds true, it has many implications for the basis on which we form stereotypes and assessments of others, as well as those "others" assessments of us.
However, despite the negative connotation I have placed on one being "uncomfortable" with the clashing nature of the evidence they've gathered, I also suggest that this can be used to one's advantage to create a healthy, meaningful contrast, which may lead to being perceived as different in a positive way. By discomfort, I mean to simply say that it causes a rupture between conflicting evidence.
When it comes to this whole thing, I'm most concerned with two things: 1. Does it hold any merit to begin with, and 2. How can this theory be most effectively leveraged in day-to-day life?
2
1 comment
A Reflection On Hell Week
powered by
skool.com/epoch-academy-7850
Join the World's BEST Anime Themed Self-Improvement Community! We focus on brain health, physical fitness and overall self-improvement! ⛩️
Suggested communities
Powered by