Learning change requires exposure to change. Just as you can’t learn tennis from reading about it, you can’t learn how to handle change if you don’t actually experience it yourself. So how do you get exposure to change?

For the intellectually minded, it’s generally more preferable to learn by finding the knowledge you want and then reading about it. Reading may imbue you with knowledge, but you have to put the knowledge to use for anything to happen. Reading is a complementary aide - not a substitute for action itself. 

There are usually two main times where you learn something important during an action: 

Completing an action can give you a new perspective on change. Most actions will follow a curve of being exciting to start, followed by a descent into “why am I doing this again?” territory. While unpleasant, this low point is where all the learning starts. If you can convince yourself to keep going even when it’s unpleasant, then you gain a little exposure in handling the initial discomfort that comes from change. Your mental fortitude increases a little. 

The next place you learn something is when you quit. Again, the low point is the key as most quitting is going to happen when things get unpleasant. Contrary to perhaps most conventional advice out there, quitting can be very useful because it can reveal a false desire. If you think you want to create a newsletter, but you find the constant need to produce content to be exhausting, you might not really want to create a newsletter. Perhaps what you really enjoy is discussing a topic in-depth and you would be happier with a more engaged community and publishing intermittently. In this situation, quitting is actually to your benefit because it frees you up from chasing something you don’t really want and gives you back the opportunity to try new approaches. 

If you can learn both by completing and by quitting, then which one should you aim for? If you gain upside from both scenarios, then aiming does not really matter. What matters is reaching the low point so that you can find yourself in a situation where you can learn something. 

If you preemptively quit before hitting the low point, then you don’t discover anything. Did you quit because you weren’t interested? Were you just too busy? Were you not disciplined enough? It’s hard to say because you never hit the key stressor of difficulty. 

So instead of focusing on either completing or quitting, focus on getting to the point of difficulty. And then go a little further. From here, whichever direction you go, you’ll likely learn something.

The other way to gain exposure to change is to selectively diversify what environments you’re exposed to. Environments are extremely useful to learning how to handle change because they force you to respond. Imagine moving to a new city where you know no one. This new environment would force you to behave differently than you would were you living in your hometown surrounded by people you know. 

Environments can be soft or harsh and choosing which ones you should experience requires moderation. If you only operate in extremely harsh environments, you are liable to break or become extremely jaded. The point isn’t to hurt yourself, but rather to learn how to handle change better. By the same token, if you only stay in soft environments, it will be very hard to acquire the fortitude you might need when change comes your way. 

One might wonder, if change is hard why wouldn’t I just stay in harsh environments to learn?  What is the value of a soft environment, besides that it would be more comfortable? 

Just because you can thrive in a harsh environment, doesn’t mean you can thrive in a soft one. 

That’s a little bit like saying if you can be mean, then you can be kind. Change is hard because it is different from what you are used to. If you are used to harsh environments, then a soft one will be difficult for you.

It’s true that if you are more exposed to hardship, you are generally going to have more tools to survive than someone who hasn’t. In your portfolio of environments, having a greater allocation for harsher environments is probably beneficial. But exclusively focusing on harsh environments is most certainly not. 

This is because the kind of tools you gain from harsh environments cannot be used in soft environments as is. The usefulness of a tool is entirely dependent on the environment in which you operate in. Imagine a very aggressive street dog - one who has fought and won many battles to survive. Then a person takes him in and he has to learn to be a civilized pet. The skills he has learned - how to fight, how to steal, how to hunt - are not useful anymore. In fact, they are actively detrimental. If the dog bites another dog or hurts another human being, the owner will have little choice but to put him down. What was useful in one environment became harmful in another. 

Harsh and soft are simplifications. In reality, environments exist across a wide spectrum. It pays to build out a diverse portfolio of environments to experience. It increases the chances that you’ll have a decent working model to go off when change strikes. 

Flux

Learning Through Exposure

Actions create change

Reaching difficulty

Register for complete access