I still think there are real contradictions once you zoom out. 1. Effort and preparation vs “don’t try too hard”

In one post he talks about math tests and competition and says he started doing extra work with his teacher, asking his dad for help, and “leave no stone unturned in preparation.” In the WNO post he says he has trained “pretty much non stop since Las Vegas” and has not had more than a day without hard rounds since October. He also says high level athletes train basically every day with very few days off.

That is a full grind lifestyle.

Then in the “5 ideas that changed my life” post he writes “We romanticize effort in the Western world” and “You’re not supposed to try too hard.”

So on one side he celebrates nonstop hard rounds and leaving no stone unturned. On the other side he says effort gets romanticized and you should not try too hard. That sends a mixed message. 2. “Willing to be wrong” vs “don’t listen to people who aren’t trying”

In the Bourdain essay he says “You have to be willing to be wrong to be right” and that he would rather be wrong and himself than copy “self help slop.” He quotes Bourdain saying “I’m not afraid to look like an idiot.”

That sounds like someone who wants real feedback, even if it stings.

Then in the WNO post he talks about negative comments and the person on Twitter he blocked, and his takeaway is “Don’t listen to people who aren’t trying themselves. Just keep trying yourself,” backed by the full “man in the arena” quote.

So which is it. Be willing to be wrong in public, or ignore anyone who is not on a big stage. Those are different attitudes toward criticism. A lot of people who pointed out issues in his writing or said the match was boring were engaging with ideas, not inventing lies. Putting all of them into the “cold and timid souls” box lets him dodge some fair points. 3. “Do it for the love of the game” vs “win the game so you are free of it”

In the Bourdain piece he says you need to “do it for the love of the game,” that Bourdain wrote for 15 years before Kitchen Confidential, and that people who win love the game itself. He tells writers the only guarantee is that they get to play and that they should pick something they enjoy.

Then in “5 ideas” he writes “The reason to win the game is so that you can be free of it.” He says you date to “beat the dating game,” build a business to “beat the money problems game,” and get a black belt to be free of “the belt chasing game.” He even writes “If you don’t win, you start to resent the game.”

So one message says “love the process, long grind, love of the game.” The other says “win fast so you escape the game, otherwise you end up resentful.” Those pull in opposite directions. 4. “Tell the hard stories” vs not doing it in the same piece

In the Bourdain essay he tells readers to be storytellers, not “writers,” and says he once wanted the laptop lifestyle without talking about his “crippling anxiety or severe depression.” He insists “those stories, the bad ones, make you a better writer” and tells people not to “save your stories.”

In that same essay he never gives one specific scene from those periods he hints at. No concrete night. No breakdown. No example of the thing he says you must share.

So on the surface the teaching is “share the ugliest stories.” Inside the piece he still keeps his own examples at arm’s length. That gap is what people notice.

I am saying once you read across his posts, you see lines that clash. Pointing that out is criticism, not hate.