> The people I know who do improve tend to stop looking and start doing (exercise, learning new things, etc.).

Ironically this probably isn't only because doing things brings happiness, but because more experience means more context, and more context means more understanding. The only way to gain a better understanding of your life is to have more types of experiences, sitting there and thinking about it within the framework of the experiences you've already had generally isn't that useful.

E.g. the best way to understand why a previous relationship didn't work out is to have more relationships.

I just went through a long period of self reflection that I found very helpful. It wasn't easy, but there wasn't really another option as I didn't have the energy to try new things. Now I am doing new things again and it is of course helpful, but I can't discount the benefit that reflection provided.

> the best way to understand why a previous relationship didn't work out is to have more relationships.

This ignores all the people who are leaving a trail of destruction in their wake without much self-awareness or guilt.

Neither am I. Ruminating on how we are deficient is no path to happiness or balance. Exercise, eat right, volunteer to serve others who are down and out, learn something new, work toward a purpose or goal, and if necessary, get pharmaceutical help, because for some no lifestyle or conduct can help enough.

The entire point of modern evidence based therapy is to help stop people ruminating on how they feel deficient.

Yes, and no. Good therapists do that, but I suspect, but do not know, that therapists may frequently prolong therapy past the point of usefulness to the point where therapy is in itself the significant remaining act of rumination.

Now that you mention it, I do know someone who did succeed in their quest - they lost a ton of weight permanently, changed a lot as a result of a spiritual experience; but also became a bit of a velvet-gloved menace, incapable of questioning themselves anymore. Zen refers to this sort of state as being "drunk with enlightenment," and they don't mean it in a good way.

> "velvet-gloved menace"

What does that mean? Sounds interesting.

He was extremely good with people; it's easy to mistake great people skills for excellent ethics when evaluating others but they aren't at all the same! He managed to make that mistake when looking at his own actions. He wasn't a Sociopath, I don't believe, because he could be considerate and do good things, his charm wasn't as shallow as theirs. He could have extreme empathy. But where he was stunningly selfish; there was no redress, he was incapable of examining his own actions for fault as he held himself enlightened and beyond such things. (Whereas in Mahayana Buddhism, enlightenment is said NOT to remove all our negative "tendencies", it only guarantees that we don't add more, and gives us a good change of noticing remaining tendencies.) If a whim took him, the damage would be done without a glance back. And no past good behavior on other's part tempered his decisions. A sort of Don Quixote. The only other person I've known to be very like him was also a mystic (but Sufi type) whose personality had been formed largely by hundreds of LSD trips. Also a menace you didn't see coming. Astonishing to meet, but not good to know. So maybe LSD or similar was a factor in the first case, too, and the spiritual breakthrough more manufactured than accomplished.

A quick search seems to indicate that "velvet glove" refers to gentle but persistent persuasion. Evangelicals come to mind (not of the fire and brimstone variety).

It could be that people telling others about such quests seem to fail in those quests. Not sure most people seeking therapy for issues greatly bothering them are going to tell you.

> Anecdotally, everyone I know who is on a "self-discovery" quest never seems to discover anything or actually get happier.

Everyone I know who says shit like that publicly is like that. Most people don't share stuff like that unless they are assholes.

> everyone I know who is on a "self-discovery" quest never seems to discover anything or actually get happier.

then

> The people I know who do improve

Despite the contradiction here, it sounds like some people do find something on their quest, and that thing is to start taking real action.

I like how you contradicted the main point of your second sentence in the third sentence.

I imagine by self-discovery OP meant "thinking about / deciding what to do", rather than actually doing things.

That's a whole lot of correlation without causation

That's true of nearly all conversation, which is what HN threads are for.