replace "productive" with "feeling energetic and excited" in that response and their arguments are still valid. If you want to work on something, anything, there are going to be days where you are energetic and excited, and days you will feel like shit. The author of the article is suggesting to quit when the days are shit, and that is a bad advice.
There is nothing that will keep you excited forever.
No, the author is suggesting that you work on projects that are intrinsically motivating, i.e. things that you would want as opposed to problems other people want you to solve.
No, there are goals that require delayed gratification. You’re saying getting out of poverty is hard, so don’t do it. You’re saying don’t exercise, it hurts. Hate gutters In bowling? No problem, you’re as good as anyone, it’s the thought that counts.
Sometimes you gotta eat shit because it’s the right thing to do. Changing the goals won’t fool anyone, not even yourself.
No ones born knowing how to code, it takes practice, it’s not fun, it can be deeply hurtful sometimes, hell all careers can hurt bad
Painful lessons aren’t worth it cus they’re painful? We’ve crossed the rubicon. Point of no return is way over yonder
I'm not suggesting to change any goals; just to have a break from any singular activity for a while.
But whatever myth you think there is for goals that require delayed gratification simply does not exist (at least for most people).
The journey is more important than the destination and all that. Reaching some arbitrary goal doesn't bring you lasting happiness.
No ones born knowing to code, but learning to code can also be fun. Like many other things. The worst thing you can say to somebody learning anything is that "this is very hard to learn".
No, the absolute worst thing you can say is "It's fine to give up as soon as it gets hard."
If you have a pile of cash you can lead a life of not much. But lottery winners and multimillionaires almost invariably seem to get bored by constant holidays, permanent no-destination travel, and other kinds of freewheeling.
Most people need a goal and a focus. And as soon as you have one you're going to frustrate yourself by definition, because you don't have the skills or the character to reach your goal immediately.
Which means work is involved. And that's going to suck in at least some ways at least some of the time, because work does - even if you're financially self-sufficient and are doing it for passion not money.
I'm only saying one should not have to continually withstand frustration or bad circumstances. Sometimes giving up (and doing something else) is the right thing to do. Sometimes you need a break to be able to continue. And so on.
In any case you should never prime for difficulty, it only decreases performance and motivation.
And since very few things are actually really, really necessary, I find it's very hard to pass morality about "the need to do more".
What I don't agree with is that everyone needs strong goal-oriented thinking and psychology to accomplish things.
Perhaps in the strictest sense everybody has goals but being goal-oriented is another thing.
If you push yourself enough you get stronger, fail to push and you get weaker. Accumulate enough weakness and everything in life becomes really hard. Truly terrifyingly hard to the point it just gets bizare. Running a marathon is easier for some people than walking to the car is for others. If you build up enough strength you can also accomplish things that take a lot of effort and time. The satisfaction you get from that cant be compared to instant gratification. But more importantly, you feel fantastic when you have the energy and know you can do hard challenging things right when you decide to go for it. Not next week, right now!
I don't think the issue is about "becoming" any of those nationalities you mentioned. You might not be considered Indian or Nigerian or Kuwaitian in those countries, but you sure as hell won't be ostracized or receive disapproving looks. That is speaking generally since every country has racist/xenophobic people.
Is the blackfaced actor used to make fun of black people? Probably racist. But that would also be the case if it were a black actor doing the same (it might just be more difficult to hire one for that).
Is it used to create tension between the obviously fake costume and the effort put into pretending that it is real? Probably not racist. I can imagine a show deriving great hilarity from casting everyone in a role they are not the least bit suited to and then trying to make it work anyway.
There is nothing that will keep you excited forever.