How to Be More Agentic

[theanimal]

How to Be More Agentic

A really useful post where the author discusses her strategies for cultivating agency in her life. She sees the following 6 categories as the best ways to go about doing so:

Court Rejection- Ask for things and for things that seem unreasonable. You should be getting more rejections than you are offers, otherwise she says you are not aiming high enough. She uses jobs as an example.

Seek Real Feedback- One of the easiest ways for a person to develop

Increase your Surface Area for Luck- Wave your freak flag high and let the world know what you're doing. You might not find something immediately, but may be planting a seed for something later on. @mF is a good example of this with his art studio.

Assume Everything is Learnable- Various intellectual subject matter, personal traits (including those that are "fixed" (let the debate commence)) etc.

Learn to Love the Moat of Low Status- Be ok with being bad at things when starting out. If you're ok with this, you'll be more comfortable trying new things and getting better at them.

Don't Work too Hard- The author calls this the most important item on the list and says that the easiest way to kill agency is to burnout.

[grundomatic]

Don't Work too Hard- The author calls this the most important item on the list and says that the easiest way to kill agency is to burnout.

I'm living this.

[7Wannabe5]

Now that I have read and maybe 50% integrated "Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will" articles like this kind of strike me like other articles with titles such as "How to Be More Blessed." It's not that I don't believe that what she describes "works." More like all the sentences need to be formed somewhat differently.

[AxelHeyst]

Nice, thanks for sharing this.

I like her answer on how to be more charismatic: read some books, watch a bunch of footage of charismatic people, and then practice.

I also like her anonymous feedback input. I think I’ll make one too. (eta I made one)

[suomalainen]

like other articles with titles such as "How to Be More Blessed."

I think you're talking about The Secret

[theanimal]

I like her answer on how to be more charismatic: read some books, watch a bunch of footage of charismatic people, and then practice.

I read the book "The Charisma Myth" a few years ago. The author suggested some physical tactics in addition to what you mentioned above. Specifically, learning how to dance (something like salsa), doing martial arts, and improv. All of those force you to interact with others, often at close proximity, while needing to think and act quickly. With time and development, they will also boost your level of confidence, which is a big factor in being charismatic.

[Henry]

I'm not big on charismatic. Actually, I run from it. Totalitarian dictators tend to be charismatic so does that mean you watch films of Hitler holding crowds in the palm of his hand? Stalin was incredibly well read but that didn't do much for the millions of people he starved to death. So what are we talking about, some TED talker who knows how to hit all the beats and says to reboot or reset or rewind or reveal or rebel or retreat or reorient or reenter or repay him every time he returns to repeat himself? Or a Steve Jobs type who walks around the office compound tearing people new assholes? Or some insane asshole like Tom Cruise telling the world aliens live under the earth? I don't like charismatic people and it's not just because I have no charisma.

[zbigi]

Or a Steve Jobs type who walks around the office compound tearing people new assholes?

So many people who worked under Jobs said he could be very tough and very unpleasant, but they wanted to work under him anyway. He, unlike most entrepreneurs, created a vision that people wanted to be a small part of, even at the cost of personal sacrifices. He employed his charisma to give meaning to people's work. I think it's great leadership, or at least the best leadership we can see in something as relatively banal and meaning-free as a for-profit computer company.

[chenda]

I think being a bit of a see you next Tuesday is a prerequisite for being a successful leader.

@Henry - I've just been reading the young Stalin by Simon Montefiore, a fascinating read. Hitler and Stalin both lived as down-and-outs in Vienna in 1913, a few streets away from one another and would regularly frequent the same coffee house. It's amazing what a couple of penniless losers can achieve when they put their minds to it.

[Henry]

I think it's great leadership

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1liOZ1fW1F8

[jacob]

Leadership = being +1 WL above your followers or employees, thus creating meaning which is a combination of coherence and cohesiveness at a given level. Steve Jobs created level 12 meaning for STEM people trained for level 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_ ... complexity

[zbigi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1liOZ1fW1F8

That video says nothing about Jobs leading people? Apart maybe from the small bit about workers in sweatshops - but they weren't his employees, once he moved the production to China, he farmed it out.

EDIT: grammar

[chenda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1liOZ1fW1F8

[Henry]

Leadership = being +1 WL above your followers or employees, thus creating meaning which is a combination of coherence and cohesiveness at a given level. Steve Jobs created level 12 meaning for STEM people trained for level 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_ ... complexity

I'm not sure I understand this. Actually, I know I don't understand it. So he threw the dogs a smartbone?

[jacob]

I'm not sure I understand this. Actually, I know I don't understand it. So he threw the dogs a smartbone?

He showed how their talents fit within a bigger scheme in a way that they could make sense of yet not be able to come up with on their own. Basically providing a/one synthesis to their analysis.

[zbigi]

He showed how their talents fit within a bigger scheme in a way that they could make sense of yet not be able to come up with on their own. Basically providing a/one synthesis to their analysis.

Hmm... Doesn't it fit every CEO ever? Or, at least the ones who were creating companies, and not taking over the pre-existing org.

[jacob]

Hmm... Doesn't it fit every CEO ever? Or, at least the ones who were creating companies, and not taking over the pre-existing org.

It does, but Jobs was in the right industry at the right time, which makes him stand out at the CEO-1 level.

[zbigi]

It does, but Jobs was in the right industry at the right time, which makes him stand out at the CEO-1 level.

I think he's celebrated for more than being just an excellent company founder/CEO. His achievements are bringing into personal computing elements which no one before him thought belonged there - coherent design philosophy across hardware and software (minimalism), treating products like coherent wholes (demanding, that insides of a computer, which the customer does not see, were as beautiful as the outside). In latter parts of his career, he was celebrated for inventing novel usages of computers, such as smartphone (phone with a touchscreen and no keyboard). It was literally more or less his idea to combine budding technologies at the time (touchscreens that have barely started to have the right touch resolution and were damage resistant enough etc.) into a product that he saw as changing the world, while many others (including myself) saw as a niche gizmo. Here's a level 12 CEO hilarious (in hindhisght) opinon on the iPhone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U

[7Wannabe5]

With the differentiation of the noosphere and the biosphere, women could still claim a rich heritage in the biospheric qualities (mostly, embodied communion) that differentiate them from men (mostly, hyperagency)- this is the claim of radical feminists. But likewise, the could also claim noospheric equality and demand that it be protected by law- this is the claim of the liberal feminists.

- "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality" -Ken Wilber. (my emphasis)

I'm also reading "Transcendent Sex" by David Deida (with forward by Ken Wilber), and it amuses me a bit to note that the advice in the linked OP article is in very good alignment with advice to increase your masculine energy towards transcendent sex, if you want to be the partner inhabiting the masculine energy. If you want to be the partner in the feminine energy, your practices will be more towards becoming radiant embodiment of love. At the spiritual level, the masculine energy would be associated with the many ascending towards the one through largely ascetic practice, whereas the femine energy would be associated with the one descending towards the many through largely compassionate practice. So, a commonplace example of advice towards more high-functional feminine practice would be "Stop and smell the roses." Of course, in any given human, highest functioning would involve an interplay of both energies.

Sexual dichotomy theory holds that if you want to attract a partner with high functioning in polar opposite to that which you prefer to occupy during sex or within sexual relationship, your practice (towards that end) should be in alignment with maximizing your functioning in the pole you prefer. Ergo, if you are a heterosexual female who wishes to inhabit the feminine energy towards transcendent sex in the biosphere, but also wishes to achieve success, freedom, respect related to your functioning in the noosphere (realm of the mind freed of biological constraints) of Modern society, you must also develop the ability to fluidly and appropriately move from one energetic pole to the other. This is also basically what those who primarily inhabit their masculine energy need to do to find "meaning" in life beyond their agency.