Working should produce results. How it feels is incidental.
Now someone else goes through the same process, but it's at least a partial struggle. That person has bouts of wanting to give up, of having to fight through pain and discomfort. That person wakes up half the time and their monkey brain is telling them to skip the gym today, just go back to sleep.
Person B has earned much more than a six pack in this scenario.
Per my other post, right now it feels like Person B just took an extra hardship for no good reason whatsoever other than its a hardship. If that's their norm, if they keep taking unnecessary hardships, they'll just constantly accomplish less for no specific reason.
If this is a hobby, a challenge they set for themselves, then this is no longer about specific accomplishment but about challenge itself. But then it doesn't apply to the course - which aims to produce a result with less hardship. Which is what most of us most of the time seek - I have a car because it's less hardship than walking 57km a day in rain to my work. I have an apartment because it's less hardship than living in a tent in a big city. I wear warm clothes in the winter because it's less hardship than being very cold constantly. I read articles because it's less hardship than watching long protracted videos. If I aim to learn something and that's the entirety of my goal, I will absolutely seek out the most efficient path there without.
Back in the day, back in the old country, my math teacher insisted we all use a book of logarithmic and trig tables. It was couple of hundred pages of numbers. It accomplished exactly the same thing as a calculator - it didn't enable us to learn anything more or figure out result ourselves - it was just harder than a calculator - a hardship for sake of hardship. The prof never ever could understand that it brought us no benefit over a calculator - and time saved could've been spent actually learning something extra or something better.
So there's a place for self-imposed barriers, occasionally, for specific purposes. But they're not inherently good or to be sought out - especially when you have an actual, specific goal and objective you want to accomplish.
And my point is it will fail. You won't get the best result without the hardship, and it's disingenuous to claim so. That's my opinion.
> Which is what most of us most of the time seek - I have a car because it's less hardship than walking 57km a day in rain to my work. I have an apartment because it's less hardship than living in a tent in a big city. I wear warm clothes in the winter because it's less hardship than being very cold constantly. I read articles because it's less hardship than watching long protracted videos.
I get what you're saying. But I see this as a problem long term. I see an optimization of comfort and "get to the end result as fast and 'efficient' as possible" and I don't like what that says for the future of human beings. Again, my opinion. Neither of us is wrong or right here.
"Accomplished more"? By your own premise, not.
In modern society both axis have value; but there is not, in my mind, bravery or respect in pointless, self-incurred, avoidable hardship.
It's a discussion I frequently have with my dad. He's extremely proud, and will tell anybody in any circumstance (get ready for too much information ;) that he went for his cystoscopy without anesthetic. But as much as I love him and he's my #1 role model in general, I don't see a point of that, and especially not as a point of pride. If you were in a country/place/situation where you can't have anesthetic, OK, now it's bravery. We all went through a war and had our lovely little chance to demonstrate bravery (do not recommend / would not buy again;). But if anesthetic is available, the norm, right there, and you refuse it, what is the moral victory here?
Again, I absolutely will give points for effort and bravery in face of hardship. But your description of person B, on its face, is just pointless hardship for the sake of hardship. It feels like person A will accomplish three more things in the time it took person B to accomplish that one, so again, assuming it's self-incurred, they're just slowing themselves down and handicapping for no good reason. ️
(note: if in your scenario they have different circumstances that forced hardship on B but not on A, that's different; but it feels you're championing hardship for the sake of hardship, and I firmly believe societal progress is all about eliminating as much hardship as we can for as many people as we can, so we can step up to the next level of accomplishment rather than being stuck on something that can be made easier)
Let's say I, as a non-runner, decide I want to run a marathon in 6 months. Everything that happens between now and then - setting a goal, learning how to train, putting in the work every single day, fighting through the foot pain, skipping out on that ice cream, etc. - will serve me well beyond the singular race.
That's what I'm talking about. My original post was referencing silly marketing language that improving yourself shouldn't feel like work. Imagine someone stated that "training for a marathon shouldn't feel like work." Yes, it motherfucking should. Otherwise you're just skipping out on the stuff that will make you a better/stronger person in favor of some outcome that doesn't truly matter in the long term.
This is the tricky bit. The stated goal is "running a marathon". What you're effectively saying is that the stated goal is not the real goal, and that the real goal is self-improvement for its own sake, with the marathon just being an arbitrary OKR.
Perhaps I'm already in a perfectly fine physical condition, I'm more than capable of running a marathon, and all the preparation I need is learning the pace of a marathon. Perhaps all those self-improvement benefits are things I've already achieved in my life and are not lessons I need to relearn. Perhaps I don't give a damn about any of those so-called self-improvement benefits, and just want to run.
What I "should" get from the experience is entirely up to me, and you're in no position to impose more goals than the stated "I want to run a marathon" goal.
From a loosely neuroscience perspective (I had quite a few courses but I'm not a professional or scientist in that field), no it isn't. What do you think "feelings" are?
It "feels" very different when your brain finds out that it's current wiring may need major updates (work! literally, for the brain) compared to when it finds that the current wiring is good enough.
All those light and strong "feelings" don't come from some nebulous ether.
When are people really open to changing their ways? Two examples for a smoker:
1. You hear (again) that smoking is bad. Maybe you also get (yet again) a few scientific study pointers. You feel... nothing (bored?)
2. Somebody you love unexpectedly is diagnosed with lung cancer and since they always were chain smokers it really hits you deep. You feel really bad, and it's string bad.
Which of the two experiences is more likely to lead somebody to really change their ways?
That's two extremes, but all feelings are reflections of actual state of your hardware. The brain would prefer not to have to change, the point it got to (the here and now) was hard fought for already so any new, especially major changes need to prove that they are worth it. The new state will be unproven and uncertain, if it's a major adaptation it will take many iterations.