The importance of hearing "No"

Failure and rejection are necessary for character-building and success. I am no stranger to rejection, and I would bet that my lovely group of subscribers here at Substack are not strangers to rejection either. From job interview failures to relationships, most of us have had our fair share of rejection experiences. Even being bullied is a form of social rejection. I know a lot about being bullied - from the grade school experiences to the COVID era - it’s all about rejection stemming from being perceived as “different” somehow. Withstanding rejection to me, is a key element in the generation (or perhaps discovery is a better word) of our characters. There might even be a direct proportionality between the level of rejection we sustain, and the level of character and resilience we carry. I think that if a study was done - or some kind of “fair poll” (if there is such a thing) - was done, we would see this concept visualizable on a 3D plot where clusters would be visible. Those clusters would represent certain character types directly linked to level of rejection. Below is simply an illustration of this concept. It is based on real studies and data including a study about how researchers get constant rejection when submitting their work for peer-review.1234 If I had to speculate - and this is purely observational speculation - I would guess that the red cluster (low resilience, low rejection experience) tends to include “privileged” individuals who have generally faced less adversity in life. For example, individuals who never had to work for their money (such as trust-fund kids) and highly attractive people who’ve rarely, if ever, been turned down romantically. II believe the relationship between rejection and resilience is dynamic. Like any muscle, resilience strengthens when it is exercised through occasional exposure to rejection. This does not mean one needs constant rejection - that would be counterproductive and defeating - but rather that small, manageable doses of non-debilitating rejection are necessary for growth. I would guess that people can become non-resilient if these muscles are not exercised and in fact, I think this happens constantly in our society nowadays. For example, if one were to continuously just “get” things handed over to them, they would lose their ability to maintain and acquire resilience via the path of rejection. One who intentionally isolates themselves is also going to get rejected by others less, but this is more a preemptive tactic of avoidance of rejection - it doesn’t work. N.B. I don’t think that many billionaire tech CEOs have our best interests at heart. Why would they? They live in a world entirely separate from our world. For example, in the “medical industry” world, most are incentivized by profit and will always justify harms to people in order to maintain profit margins. Many of them fall victim to the phenomenon of never having failed, or become “unfailable” because of the way the system is set up. Think bank fraud and bailouts. The effect of LLMs and AIs and chatbots (whatever you want to call it) Because of the importance of rejection for building character, I have concerns about the over-use of LLMs and chatbots, especially in younger people. And in fact, I will make the case for AIs being a great example of how and why people are becoming less able to handle rejection and thus losing character itself. A research monograph written by Rénald Gesnot entitled The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Human Thought5 was published on the ArXiv preprint server last summer (August 2025). The author discusses how interaction with AIs is transforming the way that we humans think in a negative way. This research paper examines, from a multidimensional perspective (cognitive, social, ethical, and philosophical), how AI is transforming human thought. It highlights a cognitive offloading effect: the externalization of mental functions to AI can reduce intellectual engagement and weaken critical thinking. On the social level, algorithmic personalization creates filter bubbles that limit the diversity of opinions and can lead to the homogenization of thought and polarization. This research also describes the mechanisms of algorithmic manipulation (exploitation of cognitive biases, automated disinformation, etc.) that amplify AI's power of influence. Finally, the question of potential artificial consciousness is discussed, along with its ethical implications. The report as a whole underscores the risks that AI poses to human intellectual autonomy and creativity, while proposing avenues (education, transparency, governance) to align AI development with the interests of humanity. [5] In his examination of the effects of AI on human thought - to include cognitive atrophy, reduced critical thinking, and weakened intellectual autonomy - he warns of cognitive standardization through homogenized content, algorithmic filter bubbles, and cultural biases that erode opinion diversity, creativity, and collective innovation. Considering that AIs are very much moderators of information, this makes sense to me. The paper also analyzes manipulation mechanisms of AIs - exploitation of biases, personalized persuasion, disinformation, and deepfakes - that amplify influence by states and corporations. From artificial consciousness, black-box opacity, and risks of an “orchestrating” AI fostering dependency, he highlights threats to human intellectual autonomy while advocating education, transparency, and governance to balance benefits with preservation of cognitive diversity. I share Rénald’s concerns on this subject matter and think he makes excellent poitns. But in addition to concerns regarding loss of intellectual autonomy as an effect of interacting more with AIs, I believe that we should be just as concerned (if not more so) about the effects of interacting less with other human beings. We humans are not social beings by accident. It is by design that when we interact, we benefit from it: physically, mentally and spiritually. We need each other, and are better off together. We crave companionship for very good reasons and on the flip side, I think everybody can relate to the feeling of loneliness or isolation. For me personally, I often feel lonely, but out of a feeling of being misunderstood. Most people find my extreme comfort with being alone or talking to animals and trees hard to understand. I was once told by someone to “stop talking to cats: people will think I am crazy”. I didn’t stop talking to cats. There is no judgment from within or without - simply an acknowledgement that engagement with others is vital to stepping into self and from my personal perspective, my “others” include everything. Even rocks. It’s a bit ironic, and I’m still trying to understand what it means to “know thyself” fully, but it seems to me that tribe is a pathway to knowing the self, and that this might just be the point of life. Interjection: I am writing these words whilst lying in bed and I thought to myself for a brief second that I hadn’t heard my kitty meowing for me, or for food, for a while. Within a few seconds of my thinking this to myself, he got up from the other room and meowed, walked into the room I am in, popped up on the bed, walked up to my face, looked into my eyes and meowed. I asked him (telepathically it seems): You heard me call out to you telepathically, didn’t you? He meowed and laid down beside me and started purring. This is how it is with this amazing creature and me. The exchanges between us and our pets may not be heavily documented as some grand scientific study, but it is real. I decided to include this interjection because I certainly don’t exclude my kitty - or any living thing - from my social network. I benefit daily from all life surrounding me in terms of learning to know myself. I went snorkeling just before continuing this article and my God, there is SO MUCH life under there! So many fish! So many species…

create your storyflo · everywhere you listen.

The importance of hearing "No"