Why do you sense this as a strong aversion to people improving themselves, and not a strong aversion to people trying to guilt people into seeing only one mindset to self improvement?
Instead of being the person not aware of their moods and carrying resentment over the smallest slights so they end up bitching about it to everyone. If one never chooses, or "vote", for the positive/uplifting inter/action, then they are "voting" to keep being the person who always has something to complain about.
Similarly, the smoking example, choose to be someone who cares about their health or the person who could not care less. Better is defined by the user. But either way, it will certainly build, or describe, the type of person they are choosing or "voting" to be.
Though, its really just stating the obvious. The more you do or don't something the more those actions become you. The "votes" on those actions don't have to be overt. It's like they were trying to find a novel way to restate the self-help quote: "Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; watch your actions, they become your habits; watch your habits, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny." (-attributed to the usual suspects)
Why should I waste my day taking to you when I could be working and being more productive?
Eventually all your relationships, friends family etc are tied down to how much money you will be making with that time as it could be better spent working, making money .
So sure every choice is a vote for an improved you. No one would question such an obvious statement. But the way this is framed, is that every decision should be a productive one, which will net you more income.
So stop wasting your time and be more productive or your self worth is delimiting. Aka productivity porn.
What I failed to get across is that, if we read the subjective points with complete neutrality then the only thing really being stated is: what ever your purpose for doing something is the person you continue to become. Which, yea..
However, at its core it can be an actionable, and practical, statement that can simply be a reminder to be intentional in our actions. Advice completely devoid of the subjective judgment of that intent. But the energy needed to clean up the message to that point is not everyone's cup of tea.
I don't know about 'patently false': it's literally true. The things you do reflect who you are when you do them, the person you are becoming is a hypothetical who does not exist. For example, I am the one splitting hairs in this comment, not the future me who wants to be named world's biggest pedant.
What your example points out is someone who is doing more of something over time. A smoker who smokes more is a trend, not an action.
Here's an example: if you choose not a rob a bank 10,000 times, that's 10,000 votes for not being a bank robber. Then if you choose to rob a bank just one time, you're suddenly a bank robber. 10,000 to 1, the number of votes doesn't actually matter.
That's a silly example, but what it means is that your identity isn't always the result of a bunch of small decisions. Often there's just one "vote", and that is the decision you make, the action you take.
One objection to this may be "but being a bank robber isn't who you are, it's just something you did." If so, I wonder how to square that with the example of becoming more of a smoker by smoking more cigarettes? Can I vote not to be a smoker, even if I smoke a lot of cigarettes? Or to be less of a smoker by smoking more cigarettes? That doesn't make sense to me.
Anyway, hope this clarifies my objection: "actions are votes about who you will become" is a metaphorical explanation, not a literal one, so that comment way upthread is not patently false in my opinion, even if it's arguable.
I'd say there definitely is if you do everything in life that way. You seem to be assuming it's possible to be meaningful competitive without it affecting how you interact with other people. But competitive-minded people often make it abundantly clear to those around them how much they're "winning" and even make it a point of pride that others aren't doing so well. So yes, there definitely can be problems with being competitive. But our competitive instinct can be positive motivating force - we've all pushed ourselves that little harder knowing the reward will be a higher spot on the results table. How to combine that with not being an asshole about it seems to be the challenge.
They are the clearest input to the person you *are*. I agree with the OP you replied to.
What if this is not true without exception?
> From my experience, they're usually just doing their own thing.
The "just" seems off - actions can affect the state of the system we all live in, and sometimes these effects are negative.
crab bucket mentality
It's fine to be competitive or trying to improve. But it seems to me that people reading this type of self-improvement articles are wasting their time (ironic if they want to be more productive).
Do, or do not. There is no try.
This is a meaningful distinction, even if it is a nuanced one. There's a profound difference between focusing on who you want to be tomorrow versus who you want to be today.
One mindset takes you out of the present and is an act of self denial. The other embraces the present and affirms positive self identity.
Being present has better connotations. Sometimes being present means stopping and assessing your life. It means engaging with your life in more holistic manner. It can mean planning, reflection, and listening to yourself.
I feel like many people code switch between being recklessly impulsive and intellectually abstract, while never actually living in the now.
These two avoidant behaviors are at the root most people's miseries.
You shouldn't have to fight yourself to do what is best for your future, or suppress your intellect to enjoy the present.
This is patently false. If you start smoking cigarettes occasionally and start doing it more, you are becoming more of a smoker. The actions you take or don't take are the clearest input to the person you become. It's true that this is also the person you are, but that distinction seems meaningless if you're trying to become someone better (whatever better means to you).
On a more general note (and this is what you are saying), you can both prioritize the things you need to do to progress and the time you need for enjoying yourself and your current life. These things are only mutually exclusive if you're pushing past your personal limits and there's a lot of inputs to that equation and whether that's worth it to each individual.
So my next question is: why such a strong aversion to people improving themselves? There is no problem with being competitive. However competitive you want to be, be. Do it for yourself. Don't know the author of the post, but people who are hyper competitive usually aren't telling others to also be hyper competitive (unless it's a Gary V or someone similar). From my experience, they're usually just doing their own thing.