Noah Gibbs left a very smart comment on "The First Question" --
The affinity model isn't quite as broken as it seems. A lot of (most) people's drive and motivation come from loving what they do -- or stated another way, from the extent to which the activity in question fulfills their (often emotional) needs. Your model is often too harsh and/or too complex for most people -- they try not to figure their emotional needs into "what is true", and wind up with a set of actions they can't sustain because they aren't meeting their own needs. Especially those needs that they don't want to admit they have.The affinity model is thus a bit of an evolutionary hack. It works well, but not for the reasons that seem obvious to its practitioners. A lot of evolution is like that.
This is a brilliant comment; Noah is as insightful as always.
I might pick a small bone with, "A lot of (most) people's drive and motivation come from loving what they do" -- is this true? This implies that most people have towards-based goals, things they want. Whereas I would guess that most people are more motivated in general in their life by avoiding pain and removing discomfort? See, EX, loss aversion.
But that's a nitpick, and a very small nitpick, because that's a very insightful comment which I'mv very grateful for. In particular, not factoring your own emotional needs into "what is true?" is a disastrously bad idea.
Perhaps when someone says "follow your bliss" or "follow your passion" in an smart way, it could be at least partially rephrased as, "Factor your emotional needs into what is true."
And then, also, most people won't even admit they have certain needs, which certainly makes it hard to gratify them consciously. Then, the point about evolutionary hacks.
Really a very insightful comment. Grateful to Noah for it.