I like the topic, it's one I'm reliably interested in. A topic of known desire. :-) IMO people are in many ways the same person that they were some time ago, j

I like the topic, it's one I'm reliably interested in. A topic of known desire. :-) IMO people are in many ways the same person that they were some time ago, just not in all ways (Linda Berens created a helpful lens/labeling system for this: the Core, Developing, and Contextual you, so to speak). So my own theory about this works in terms of frequencies. Longer waves are more reliable for identifying relevant interests and leveraging them; shorter, higher-frequency waves less so. It's generally more helpful to be aware of longer-term interests than shorter-term ones, especially when there's a known opportunity cost. For example I was shopping for candy the other day and couldn't decide what to get except thinking from my list of favorite candy which I update over time (per your note on journaling), so I went with reliable ones. Instead of a random result, I got a reliable result that I wanted (good feeling about purchase later). Some random is good, but I find that usually I don't want all-random, but rather reliable-enjoyment. It's been a very useful practice because even if I don't have a list for a given area, the same principles apply to other areas. I've had some other surprises in this topic of thought too, for example usually if someone asks me what I want in life, it's reliably better for me to answer with shallow, little-picture stuff. Like, I want a week off work, a new tool or pocketknife to fiddle with, a stack of old DVDs from the library, and a $50 candy & soda budget. I have learned that I automatically focus with intensity on the big-picture stuff, which can lead to neglect of the little-picture in my own case, and that's the liability, not the other way around. Anyway, thoughtful post, thanks for sharing your thoughts.