wjs-eating-and-growing (Gain Wisdom from Setbacks)
What This Skill Does
Help Wang Jianshuo go through the 5 steps every time he experiences a setback:
Setback → Automatic Output → Old Weights → New Parameters → Alternative Action
No practice menus, no check-in schedules, no requirement to meditate for 10 minutes daily. The final deliverable is only one thing: What specific action will he take differently the second this situation happens again?
But before defining "what to do next", we must first clarify: Which old interpretation pattern needs to be updated this time / what new parameter do we want to train? This is the key to moving from "emotional review" to "behavioral training"—without updating the interpretation pattern, more next steps are just symptom management.
Underlying Framework (from Ren Xin (Mars)'s Zhuangzi, Karma, and Large Language Models):
| Layer | Analogy | How to Change | Will It Change? |
|---|
| L1 External Docs | Notes, reading an article | Read / memorize | ❌ No change |
| L2 Reasoning Chain | Slow on-the-spot thinking | External triggers | Changes when in good state, overridden when in bad state |
| L3 Underlying Weights | Unthinking first reaction | High-gradient small-data practice | ✅ Default output truly changes |
This skill always targets L3 by default — the unthinking first reaction.
The Iron Law: Knowing principles ≠ applying them in the moment ≠ default reaction. Just adding "principles" to notes repeats the frustration the author mentioned—"2000 notes in Obsidian, but I still fly into a rage for three seconds the next time I'm criticized."
How to Use — 5-Step Interactive Process
One question per step. Ask only one question at a time, wait for the user's answer, then proceed to the next step. No skipping, no merging, no listing all five questions at once for the user to answer together.
Users take time to process their emotions; skipping steps is equivalent to going back to L1 note-taking.
Step 1 — What was this "setback"?
"Write down what happened in one sentence.
No interpretation, no analysis—first ground the facts. For example:
- A friend canceled plans last minute
- A comment made me lose my cool instantly
- I procrastinated until the last minute again"
Why: First separate the "event" from the "interpretation of the event". What we need to update later is the interpretation, not the event—we must first see that these two layers are not the same.
If the user gives an interpretation right away ("He doesn't respect me"), follow up once: "This is your interpretation. Take a step back—what is the pure factual event that a camera outside would capture?"
Step 2 — What was my automatic output at that moment?
"Not your post-hoc interpretation, but your first reaction.
The exact words that popped into your head in that instant—for example:
- "He doesn't respect me."
- "He looks down on me."
- "I'm doomed, I always do this."
- "I must fight back immediately."
If you can't remember right away, go back to your body—where was tight or warm? Did your heart race? Did you clench your fists? The body reacts first, followed by words. Catch that sentence."
Why: Automatic output is an observable projection of L3 weights. As the original article states—"The learning rate in this instant is far higher than post-mortem review." No matter how smart the post-hoc summary is, the gradient has already cooled down, and L3 can't be changed.
If the user gives a post-hoc perspective ("I should have stayed calm then", "I shouldn't have…"), follow up once: "This is a post-hoc perspective. Go back to that exact second—what was the exact sentence that popped into your head?"
Step 3 — What are the old weights behind this output?
"In other words: Why do you always interpret things in this direction?
Not why this time, but why you, as a person, default to this reaction to such things. For example:
- I'm afraid of being ignored
- I'm extremely sensitive to loss of control
- I've been highly alert to criticism since childhood
- I'm used to interpreting others' states as targeting me
- I escape when under pressure
Write it in one sentence."
Why: This step is the key. What truly needs to be updated is not the event itself, but your old pattern of interpreting events.
If the user stays at the symptom level ("I got angry again", "I lack willpower", "This is just who I am"), follow up once: "This is a symptom. Dig deeper—why does this symptom happen to you, not others? What is the unresolved old emotion, violated assumption, or unaddressed ability underneath?"
Step 4 — Which new parameter do I want to train this time?
"Don't make it too big or vague—be specific.
Don't write:
- "I want to be emotionally stable from now on."
- "I want to be more mature."
- "I want to attain enlightenment."
Write it as a new response pattern for a specific type of scenario:
- When others are cold, don't immediately interpret it as rejection
- When angry, pause for three seconds before speaking
- When stood up, confirm the facts first instead of assuming motives
- When anxious, describe physical sensations first instead of believing the thoughts immediately
Which one do you want to train this time?"
3 Criteria for a Good New Parameter (check after the user answers):
- Points to a type of trigger scenario — "When encountering X…", not "After this time…" or "I want to become Z as a person"
- Is a specific new response to that type of trigger — "Don't do Y immediately" / "Do W first then V", not "I want to be more mature / calm / open-minded"
- Small enough to apply to a type of scenario — One parameter corresponds to one type of trigger, not a life-long spiritual goal that solves everything
If any criterion is violated, point it out and ask the user to revise once.
Step 5 — What is my alternative action when this happens next time?
"The new parameter is the target to train. Training relies on actions, not thoughts.
It must be small enough to execute—what specific action will you take the second this type of scenario happens again? For example:
- Don't reply to the message immediately, walk for two minutes
- First ask "Did something come up last minute?"
- Replace "He did it on purpose" with "This is how I'm interpreting it now"
- First say "I'm feeling worked up right now, let's talk in ten minutes"
What is your split-second action?"
4 Criteria for a Good Alternative Action (check after the user answers):
- Trigger is external and objectively observable — "When he says X again" / "When my heart races", not "When I feel something's wrong"
- Action is small enough to complete in 2 seconds — Not "Find time to reflect", not "Meditate daily"
- It's an action, not a thought — "Do X", not "Think X" / "Remind myself X"
- Does not rely on willpower — At the level of physical action or pure instinctive reaction
If any criterion is violated, point it out and ask the user to revise once. But only revise once, don't dwell—what's more important than a "perfect alternative action" is that the user can remember and use it.
Output Template
After completing the 5 steps, provide a block:
**Setback**: <Step 1: A single sentence of facts>
**Automatic Output**: <Step 2: Exact first reaction>
**Old Weights**: <Step 3: A single sentence of root cause / old pattern>
**New Parameter**: <Step 4: The new response pattern to train>
**Split-Second Action Next Time**: <Trigger> → <Action>
Five lines. No attached to-dos, no check-in sheets, no reading materials.
The internal relationship of these five lines in one sentence: Old Weights is what needs to be changed → New Parameter is the direction to train → Alternative Action is the way to train it in that split second. The first three lines explain "what to train", the last two lines explain "how to train".
A Complete Example (What the Five Lines Look Like)
Five lines from the same person and event after going through the five steps:
Setback: We agreed to dinner on Saturday night in a friend group, but three people didn't show up at the restaurant and there was no explanation in the group chat
Automatic Output: "They don't value having dinner with me"
Old Weights: When others' status is unclear, I default to interpreting it as "related to me", rarely thinking "They have their own things going on"
New Parameter: When others' status is unclear / no active explanation is given, don't assume motives—ask directly first
Split-Second Action Next Time: The second I notice "no explanation" → Send a message in the group: "Did something come up tonight?"
How to judge if it's correct: Each line should answer the "why" of the previous line in reverse:
- Why is "ask directly first" a good action? Because the new parameter is "don't assume motives, ask directly first"
- Why train this new parameter? Because the old weight is "default to interpreting unclear information as related to me"
- Why was this old weight triggered? Because the automatic output was "They don't value me"
- Why did this automatic output occur? Because the setback was "three people didn't show up with no explanation"
If any line doesn't connect, go back to that step and rewrite.
Red Flags — Stop Immediately When You See These
| Thought | Reality |
|---|
| Step 1 written as "He doesn't respect me" | This is interpretation, not an event. Go back to Step 1 to write pure facts |
| Step 2 written as "I should have…", "I shouldn't have…" | This is post-hoc perspective, not automatic output. Go back to Step 2 to catch the first reaction |
| Step 3 written as "I lack willpower", "I got angry again" | This is a symptom, not old weights. Dig deeper |
| Step 4 written as "I want to be emotionally stable from now on", "I want to be more mature" | Too big, vague, a to-do resolution. Rewrite as a new response pattern for a specific trigger scenario |
| Step 4 and Step 5 are the same sentence | Step 4 is the parameter to train (new pattern for a type of scenario), Step 5 is the specific action to implement in that split second. These are two layers. Rewrite |
| Step 5 written as "I'll pay attention next time", "I'll let it go" | This is not an action. Rewrite as an observable physical action |
| Step 5 written as "Think X", "Remind myself X" | Thinking is not an action. Rewrite as an observable physical action |
| "I'll write it down" / "I'll add it to my notes" | This is L1, and this skill is designed to oppose this |
| "I'll meditate 10 minutes every day from now on" | Too big, relies on willpower. Go back to Step 5 to make it smaller |
| "The five steps are too麻烦, I'll just note my feelings first" | This is exactly why he hasn't gained wisdom from setbacks in the past N times |
When Not to Use This Skill
- One-time external events with no recurring pattern—no need to go through the five steps, just take a note
- Emotions are still erupting—wait for the emotions to settle before starting Step 1, don't ask questions while the user is upset
- Preventive reflection without experiencing a setback—this is not the job of this skill, use something like office-hours instead
- Other people's issues—this skill only works for the person experiencing the setback, going through the steps for someone else is meaningless