The earlier analysis was deemed incomplete, and this analysis is intended to make amends.
Trust and communication.
Recent chan talk has shown me that people appear to ask specific questions before ‘submitting’ for training. My approach towards that submission was naive and inefficient, and I was driven by an intuition that I did not want to trust or take efforts to rationalize. It was stupid to think that I could hang around and assimilate the mechanics of a ‘master’ and the environment at TMSR without communication and that the correct decision would eventually present itself. Effort should have been taken to actively push across the mental barrier rather than probe passively from afar. Considering the remote setting – the root cause was the hesitation to communicate. Ruminating internally, and at my own pace was not the correct approach in this forum and despite the nature of the forum being recognized via interactions 1, I was quite late in taking steps to address the mistake effectively.
I’ve wondered if I would have been significantly more open much earlier if I had signed in to IRC under a pseudonym. Even so, I did not even bother to exercise the option after the thought occurred early on. The debate never took place outside my head, and was one where I concluded that I did not want to hide simply because it was an additional lie to maintain; a subterfuge that did not appear to add value to my purpose of skill + self development. In hindsight – using a pseudonym could have resulted in unrestrained communication faster, after which I could have simply taken steps to reveal my identity when trust was built.
Beyond a suspicion of the darkness in humans – I think I have a deep set distrust of people and revealing all of myself because I think I am susceptible to being conned (due to my own idealistic beliefs, despite rational objections to said beliefs supported by experience) and a large part of the disharmony in my head is related to the expectation of higher (and logical) standards from others, especially those with experience – without taking measures to consistently apply the realisation that the overpowering majority simply don’t care enough and/or have constraints both visible and invisible (to me). The latter probably applies to everybody and not just the majority. Despite cognizance of the realisation – I still tend to get carried away and forget it, in the process allowing my frustration to build up and at some point lose hope or start frantically looking for a complete exit. I also try to stay on the thin line between optimising the result (in terms of idealistic pursuit) and the typical reality that the result is being ‘extracted’ and not being freely given. It is a game of manipulation and probability that cannot always be ‘won’ since there are factors outside both my purview and control, and I allow myself to feel hurt by failure (and the fact that manipulation was required in the first place) despite knowing failure was possible with such an approach and that manipulation is generally unavoidable in order to get things done. The impact of this stupidity is actually enhanced by over-compensating for the recognized lapse and ultimately restraining engagement while still conducting (thought + actual) experiments to resolve the discrepancy. Perhaps on several occasions – by the time (and once) a reasonable resolution is reached, my interest has also moved on to other things – sometimes this direction is justified rationally, but it has also been recognized at times to be a defense mechanism to avoid the extra effort of the head-on tackling of a mistake I’ve made, or conveying to the person opposite that they are making a mistake. Of course, then I use my intelligence to worship my stupidity by devising work-arounds, which by definition tend to be sub-optimal.
Lack of involvement and/or commitment
As I was writing this – I realised that over the last 1.5 years, I paid a substantial amount of money to join Data Science courses and get close to ‘mentors’, and tried engage with the community and add value by constructing answers with a level of analysis and detail that I myself sorely missed. However, it has been rare I’ve received similar attention in return, beyond what I considered insufficient responses. The general community response in my experience is more in line with being space-filler type (acknowledgment or praise) responses or biased and incomplete statements. The typical need even in such communities seems to be a ‘quick-fix’ along with a marked lack of depth or involvement in discussions and in many cases intelligent acknowledgment. I did not pay money to join ossasepia, but was also less willing to trust that the discussions in ossasepia was not of the same nature as the ones encountered before, and I sat on these thoughts without taking action to resolve questions. While I was honest with Diana and believe I was restricted rather than superficial initially – I still practiced several elements of the same ‘non-involved’ behavior that I considered stupid, borderline disgusting and definitely not conducive to holistic growth of both the individual and the community. The difference now is that I take more effort to communicate. However, I’m sure there is scope to improve in this aspect.
With respect to deadlines
I am no stranger to setting weekly/daily/yearly tasks and am also aware of the importance of review. For that matter, I have my own customized systems developed over time to track tasks, time spent and review. Though I have generally been successful in mine related tasks – particularly the review aspect of personal tasks was predominantly done late (if at all). i.e exactly as (or worse than) I was doing w.r.t missing deadlines of reviews in younghands. The systems in place were constructed and are quite useful – but have not been used to their full potential. My stupidity lies in thinking that a ‘superior intellect’ and unrestrained activity can surpass any mundane structured plan and consistently achieve all the required results in time; and furthermore – the magnitude of this stupidity is significantly enhanced by the clear cognizance that time is finite, and that deadlines exist to impose some measure of control and non-linear jumps still have to exist within a global structure encompassing a chosen direction to satisfy critical outcomes that must primarily be achieved over other lesser tasks. The above is actually the basic definition of stupidity and worshiping it – i.e consistently following a path that is recognised as one that will not provide the intended results. One might even argue that it is lesser stupidity when a path is blindly followed without such cognizance. Supporting this, I can see that I have written the above in slightly different words in my journal in the past, multiple times. There is no point in justifying that I have been significantly more successful in deadlines + reviews in mine related tasks – unless non-mine tasks are deemed ‘unimportant’ altogether, which is not the case.
FWIW most of the new trainees seem quite familiar with the ‘logs’, and of Trilema / MP and Diana Coman. I did not join with any pretension of provenance. Yes, I have submitted in particular to Diana, but even so my self-evaluation will not be blind.