Maybe I'm the only one who liked it, but I found the essay nice as it gives a simple model to understand ourselves better. Here's my take on it: there're many

Maybe I'm the only one who liked it, but I found the essay nice as it gives a simple model to understand ourselves better. Here's my take on it: there're many things out there (musical genre like classical music, cooking like Indian, French, Ethiopian) and your utility function has coefficients for most of them. When you don't know the coefficient, you try, and you come with a quick conclusion (like or don't like) that can be further refined by experience (ex: like Indian food, vegetarian Indian food is ok-ish, vegan Indian food nope) Sometimes you want to alter the coefficient because it can create conflict with your identity (what if you're vegan? what if your parents are Indian?) or other things. Sometimes you succeed through different methods, sometimes you just can't. And there're things you like you shouldn't, because of society (taboos, or banned substances) or the consequences on yourself (addictions, risks for your future health) but it's just the same thing: trying to alter the coefficient in your utility function. It may be worth it (learning something new) or futile (something you just can't change) which leads us to Seneca prayer (the wisdom to separate the two, knowing the battles you can win to avoid wasting effort). And there's another dimension if it's possible: the amount of effort required, which might be measured in years (and what if you're old and bound to fail?) Personally, I find it simpler to go epicurian and if I find something new I enjoy (right now, Russian rap lol) just enjoy it without asking myself too many questions. And if I don't like something or have no want for something I should like (Drill rap, Trap rap), I don't force myself but don't exclude it out of my life either: I leave that to serendipity :)