I'm someone who really believes in what motivated the article - namely that humans naturally seek out safe and comfortable behaviors and minimize risk, that peo

I'm someone who really believes in what motivated the article - namely that humans naturally seek out safe and comfortable behaviors and minimize risk, that people are often stuck in local maxima due to either ignorance of what's available to them or fear of the necessary action. I think it is human nature. The article is a bad over-extension of this, and misses the mark. It places a ridiculous value judgement where none is warranted. My approach is a little different here. It's to seek out instances where you are avoiding discomfort within the lifestyle that you've chosen. Your examples are perfect. A lot of people will not fix their tractor, because they don't trust themselves with anything mechanical. For many people, having the courage to disassemble their PTO is a major stumbling block, and they never gain the self-confidence to tackle these sorts of things unless they take that first uncomfortable step. Farmers aren't born with know-how. When taking care of your declining parent, you might start reflecting on years of lost quality time because of something left unaddressed between the two of you. Do you maintain a superficial relationship with your father until he dies, hoping that going through the motions is communication enough? Suppose you're not on speaking terms at all, and you hear he's unwell. Do you pick up the phone and call him after 10 years of silence? Are you willing to have one uncomfortable conversation, or will you maintain the status quo? This is what the comfort zone is really about. It's growth in any context.