Quarterlife: The Search for Self in Early Adulthood by Satya Doyle Byock

I like how she pushes back on emerging adulthood and other similar terms as seeing it as a transitional phase.

• She believes that Quarterlifers are adults, adults before midlife more specifically.
• I believe in the idea of this phase of life being something distinct with its own associated challenges.
  • I’ve written about finding friends and planning events in emerging adulthood.
    • Many would call it post-grad, but not everyone goes to college/at the same time.

I do also think it’s worth trying to push back at “everyone feels this way” and “that’s just how things are”.

• While it is true that these things are parts of our material reality, nothing is static or simply necessary.

The angst is nothing new!

• Historically people have faced the same challenges about identity, but might have had clearer adult initiation rituals to help them develop.

I think finding meaning is good, but I do think that it can be hard without cope.

• In the grand scheme of things with large scale, nothing we do matters or will last at all.
  • Anything aiming towards permanence or impact in this case for remembrance is more in the psychology of mortality.
  • If you want to help improve the world today in some measurable way, I think this is good and noble.
• I believe that believing false premises is delusion.
• Your purpose doesn’t have to be unique
  • if you are striking or boycotting you have the same purpose as everyone else and only by everyone doing the same thing can something occur
• You don’t have a purpose
  • This is meaning making and assigning order to the universe that doesn’t exist

Is stability and meaning a dilemma or no?

• I do think you have to make sacrifices for one with the other (at least in the short-term). I think ideally you would be able to find something that meshes the two together.

I like how she doesn’t engage with Maslow’s hierarchy as much and is a bit more like Yin Yang with her approach. The goblet and the wine is an apt metaphor that she returns to often. I don’t know if you need stability to pursue meaning like contemporary advice around Maslow states, it’s more that you need stability to be able to chase enlightenment, but only enough that you’re comfortable and able to focus.

Stability-Meaning isn’t a polar spectrum. You need both, but individuals will differ in the degrees to which they need both.

Meaning types seem high openness to me. Stability types maybe higher neuroticism.

• Stability is in part control

1. Separate (Differentiate, Boundary): from past
2. Listen (Introspect, Curiosity, Presence/Mindfulness): to yourself
3. Build (Destroy, Refine, Learn, Practice): Life
4. Integrate (Execute, Reap): Stability-Meaning

I don’t think that this book is the guide for everyone, but if you engage with it you can find something that you can take and apply to your life. This book isn’t supposed to be reductive, and if it seems singular in focus it’s just because she’s showing examples to teach the language and lens of Stability-Meaning (in my opinion at least). I think we should always be skeptical of One True Lens, but I think the author would be cognizant and admit this as well.

This book does not solve anything for you, it just gives you the language and framework to potentially describe the work that you need to do to craft a life that balances Stability and Meaning. Your mileage may vary and that’s okay imo.

I think this was a very self-aware and empathetic self-help book that was a very entertaining read because of the patient profile character story arcs.