People narrate their own lives with the correct causal arrow. “I was always a tinkerer, so engineering was a natural fit.” “I loved arguing as a kid, so I ended up in law.”

But when looking forward—or when observing others—they flip the arrow. “If I go through medical training, I’ll develop discipline and resilience.” “If my kid joins the military, they’ll learn structure and work ethic.”

This asymmetry creates pain. Someone undertakes training expecting transformation, then is confused or disappointed when they emerge largely the same person. The training didn’t fail—it was never going to transform them. It was a filter that revealed and selected for traits that were already there.

The Signalling Model

Bryan Caplan’s The Case Against Education formalises this. Education primarily signals pre-existing traits (intelligence, conscientiousness, conformity) rather than building human capital. The credential is evidence of who you already were.

The same logic applies beyond education. The gym doesn’t transform people into fit people—fit people go to the gym. They’re more confident there, it’s more fun for them, they get positive feedback. The causation runs from traits to behaviour, not the other way around.

This is why GLP-1s matter. They lower the activation energy. Someone who wanted to go to the gym but couldn’t overcome the friction can now get started. Once started, the positive feedback loop kicks in. The drug doesn’t transform values—it removes obstacles to acting on values that were already there.

The Prospective Challenge

The retrospective version is easy. Everyone can look back and see how their existing traits drew them to their path. The hard part—the real wisdom—is applying this prospectively:

  • When choosing a career path: Will this reveal traits I already have, or am I hoping it will create traits I lack?
  • When advising others: Is this path right for who they already are, or am I assuming it will transform them?
  • When evaluating yourself: Am I hoping some future credential or experience will finally make me the person I want to be?

The transformation you’re hoping for probably isn’t coming.

The Value Destruction

There’s an enormous amount of value destroyed by people barking up the wrong tree. Wrong careers, wrong hobbies, wrong relationships—all chosen under the assumption that the path would transform them into someone suited for it.

Credit gets inaccurately lauded on effort when it really belongs to choosing what to work on. The difference between your 20s and 30s isn’t that you get better at working hard. It’s that you get better at knowing which things are worth working on at all.

This is the Titanic power of decisions. Every valuable mental quality ultimately cashes out in your decision-making function. Intelligence, wisdom, experience—they only matter insofar as they improve the quality of your choices.

Why the Fireworks Don’t Come

This also explains why achievements feel hollow.

You finish the degree, get the job, complete the marathon. Where’s the lasting satisfaction? Where are the mental fireworks? Why doesn’t the praise land the way you expected?

Because you were always the person who could do that. The achievement didn’t transform you—it revealed what was already there. And you can’t be surprised by information you already had.

This is the hedonic treadmill in the context of achievement. People expect accomplishments to deliver lasting change in how they feel about themselves. They don’t, because you haven’t actually changed. You’ve just demonstrated something that was always true.

The compliment doesn’t land because on some level you’re thinking: “Yes, I know. I was always capable of this.” It’s priced in.

Once you see this, the emotional stakes around achievement drop. You stop expecting the credential to finally make you feel like enough. The credential matters—for income, for access, for legibility to others—but it won’t transform how you feel about yourself. That operates on an orthogonal dimension. Haven’t you noticed?

Lifestyle-Centric Career Planning

This is why Cal Newport’s concept of “lifestyle-centric career planning” is critically underrated.

The conventional approach: “What career am I passionate about?” or “What’s my calling?” This assumes the career will transform you into someone who finds meaning in it.

Newport’s approach: “What do I want my daily life to look like? Where do I want to live? How much flexibility do I need? What’s my ideal balance of income, autonomy, and creative expression?” Then work backward to find careers that could support that lifestyle.

This flips the arrow correctly. You’re not asking “what career will transform me?” You’re asking “given who I already am and what I already value, what career enables that?”

The lifestyle comes first. The career is instrumental. You’re selecting for fit with your existing traits and values, not hoping for transformation.

The Good News

The transformation you’re hoping for probably isn’t coming. But here’s the good news: the traits you already have are probably enough.

The path forward isn’t waiting for something external to change you. It’s finding contexts that reveal and leverage who you already are. Stop looking for the training program, credential, or experience that will finally make you into the person you want to be.

You’re already that person. You just need to find the environment where that becomes obvious.