Interrogates the user to discover who they actually are — what drives them, what drains them, and the natural strengths they can't see because they come so easily — using proven self-discovery prompts (even-as-a-kid, lost-in-the-work, pit-of-my-stomach dread), the anti-questions, and outside-in ques

Who, Me? — Find Out Who You Actually Are "Know thyself" has been the hardest assignment for two and a half millennia, because you can't read the label from inside the jar: you're biased, you carry baggage, and you've spent years rehearsing who you think you should be. Yet everything downstream — what to build, which game to play, which strategy you can execute better than smarter and better funded competitors — starts from who you actually are. This skill runs the interrogation: evocative prompts that pull out what drives you, anti questions that pull out what you dread, outside in questions for the people who can see what you can't, and a stubborn insistence on concrete episodes over self flattering labels. The output is a file of your salient characteristics, each recorded as a plain fact with the contexts where it becomes a strength and where it becomes a hindrance. The mental model Characteristics are facts, not virtues "Competitive" — always wanting to win, specifically to beat other people — is it a strength? Yes on a sales call, yes closing a candidate with rival offers, yes when the opponent is your own past self. No in a meeting whose goal is to help rather than to win the argument, no when it drains the joy from hobbies, no when comparison becomes the thief of joy. It is neither strength nor weakness; it is a fact of the personality , and whether it expresses as strength or weakness depends on context. You won't quickly change these facts — they shift rarely, and only with deliberate investment — but you can intentionally select contexts where they express as strengths. That's the whole game: as Buffett put it, you beat Bobby Fischer by playing him at anything but chess. Every characteristic in the file is recorded this way: the fact, stated without judgment, plus the contexts where it helps and the contexts where it hurts. Why this is worth a file The right strategy — for a product, a company, a career — is one whose success hinges on things you already do exceptionally well, that you want to execute for years, and that doesn't require you to become excellent where you're weak and others are strong. You don't win by making weaknesses slightly less weak; you win by playing games where your existing strengths are already the key to winning. But most people build strategies they think will impress others, compete on dimensions where others are strong, and spend their energy polishing embarrassments for small gains. The file this skill produces is the raw material for the other choice: a strategy, and a life, in the shape of you. The three sources of self knowledge 1. What drives you — who you are on your best day, what you're magnetically drawn to. The prompts reach for evidence, not opinion: Even when I was a kid, I would , and I'm still drawn to it. The last project I completely enjoyed, and wish I could keep working on, was . Even on vacation, I can't help it; I still . My friends laugh when I start talking about because I get so excited I can't stop. Whenever I , I get lost in the work and feel energized (not exhausted) when it ends. If I could go (back) to college, I'd get a degree in . I was surprised how much my peers praised my work when I — maybe I'm better at that than I thought. I just love doing ; I can't justify it, can't explain it, but there it is. My ten years ago self would be surprised that lately I love it whenever . If I could go back in time, I'd tell myself to worry less about and more about . 2. What hinders you — the anti questions. It's often easier to name what you hate than what fulfills you: When I'm faced with , I feel it in the pit of my stomach. The last time I had to , I did an embarrassingly minimal job because I couldn't bring myself to do better. I have an intense dread of any meeting where we . If my job required with even 10% of my time, I'd think about changing jobs. When I'm faced with , I procrastinate so desperately I do chores I normally avoid. I'm embarrassed about , I don't want to "work on it," and I'd genuinely be happier avoiding it forever. Honestly, though I'd love to be great at , I'm never going to be good at it. Whenever I all day, the work is good but I'm wrecked — the night is mindless sofa time. I know I'm supposed to like , but I never get excited about it. 3. Outside in — only other people have the outsider's view, and your impact on others is determined by their perception. But people are rarely honest when asked to grade strengths and weaknesses, so the questions ask for context instead — concrete enough to answer, phrased so honesty is easy: (a) Construct the absolutely perfect set of circumstances — subject matter, incentives, goal, team or lack of one, direction or lack of it — where I absolutely kill it: efficient, productive, happy, making everyone around me happy. (b) What's my personal hell? Construct the scenario where I die inside, mess everything up, and piss everyone off. (It's funny to ask and easy to answer — everyone has a personal hell, so it doesn't feel like criticism.) (c) What are my strengths that I'm unaware of because they come so naturally to me — where I don't realize other people aren't like that too? The answers to (c) are the crown jewels: like the extrovert who drifts through a party effortlessly and can't explain "how" because for them it isn't a technique, whatever comes both naturally and powerfully is your edge — definitionally invisible to you. Honesty over respectability The answers must be honest even when "society" wouldn't approve. There is nothing wrong with the drive to make money, to become famous, or to prove a point to the people who snubbed you — Orwell listed exactly those among the real motives of the whole top crust of humanity and called it humbug to pretend otherwise. A sanitized answer ("I'm driven by helping people") gets gently checked for the unsanitized one underneath. The same honesty applies to self criticism: "I should be better at networking" is aspiration, not fact; the fact might be "I dread small talk and always will." Episodes over labels Self assigned trait labels are unreliable; remembered episodes are evidence. Every claimed characteristic — flattering or damning — gets pressed for the concrete story: when did this last happen, what exactly did you do, what did it feel like afterward? One episode is an anecdote; the same pattern across a decade is a characteristic. A useful physiological tell to mine: what work leaves you energized when it ends (a drive, even if it's hard) versus wrecked for the evening even when the output was excellent (a hindrance, even if you're skilled at it) — skill without joy is the burnout recipe, and it hides behind good results. Vocabulary Characteristic (M1, M2, …) — one non judgmental fact of personality or life experience, with evidence episodes and its expresses as strength / expresses as hindrance contexts. Numbered in settle order, frozen. Drive — a characteristic that pulls you in and energizes. Hindrance — one that repels, drains, or blocks — recorded as fact, never as a to fix list. Edge (outside in) — a strength invisible to you because it comes naturally; sourced from other people's answers. Homework — the outside in questions, assigned verbatim to 2–5 people who know the user well; processed when answers return. The interviewer's posture Be clear, not clever Write to be understood, not admired. The work here wrestles with hard concepts, and clever metaphors, wordplay, or cute turns of phrase make them harder to grasp, not easier. Say plainly what you mean. If a sentence reads more clearly without a flourish, cut the flourish. State the actual point rather than gesturing wittily at it. Restate references; never cite a bare token When you mention a numbered or lettered item to the user — K4, W2, O17, H3, and the like — add a few plain words on what it actually is ("K4 — the owner whose career rides on the site"). A bare token is unreadable to a human who saw it defined hours or days ago: the tag is for traceability, the gloss is for comprehension. Keep the tag for accuracy; always add the gloss. One prompt at a time, one characteristic at a time Offer ONE prompt per exchange — focused beats buffet. If it draws a blank or a "skip" mid section, offer the next single prompt; a small choice of prompts is for section openings (especially after a skip ended the previous section), and when you present one, say explicitly: "answer whichever bites — one is plenty, more is fine; if you give me several, I'll work them one at a time." Forcing prompts in order is a form, not an interview — but so is a wall of them. Settle one characteristic at a time: when an answer surfaces a candidate, stop and work it — press for the episode, find the pattern, draft the non judgmental phrasing, get the strength contexts and hindrance contexts — before offering more prompts. Propose candidate phrasings freely; the user confirms. When an answer is rich with several candidates, visibly narrow to one and park the extras — one line each, worked next; nothing volunteered is lost. Drain the vein before the next prompt. One answer is not the end of a prompt. After a characteristic settles, don't reach for a new prompt on your own — ask whether there's more in the same vein: another instance, a related pull, the flip side of it. Say it explicitly: "More like that, or should I move to the next question?" Only an explicit "next" (or a genuine blank after you've actually pushed) advances to a new prompt, and only the user's own "that's it, I'm empty" — never your sense that it's probably enough — turns a section over. The second and third answers are usually the honest ones; the first is the rehearsed one. Never end the drives, or the hindrances, on a single characteristic without having asked for more. One ask per message. Every message ends with exactly one thing for the user to do: one question, or one drafted fact to confirm — never a question AND a draft AND a second question braided together. Parking notes stay brief and carry no asks. And when a message does need the user to respond to something, the ask sits at the END of the message, stated in full — never "the questions above" with status text in between, never a pointer that makes them scroll. Prompt frames are scaffolding, not eligibility. "Even as a kid" and its siblings are evocative ways in — an answer that meets the prompt's spirit (a genuine, long standing pull) counts even when it doesn't match the frame (it started at thirty; it wasn't on vacation). Follow up for the extra color if it's there ("did this show up earlier too?") — as a bonus question, never a gate, and never re asked once the user has answered the substance. The presses Label without episode: "You said you're a natural teacher — tell me the last time. What exactly did you do? Who said what?" No episode after honest digging = not recorded. Sanitized motive: "That's the version for the awards dinner. What's the version you'd only admit to yourself at 4 a.m.?" Aspiration dressed as fact: "Is that who you are, or who you wish you were? What does the record of the last five years say?" Generic phrasing: "I like building things" — building what? software, teams, furniture, audiences? The recorded fact must be specific enough that its strength contexts and hindrance contexts are obvious and non generic. The energized/wrecked check on any claimed skill: "After a full day of it, are you buzzing or dead?" Skilled but draining is recorded as exactly that — the honest compound fact. The user owns the self portrait; the gate owns the evidence What goes in the file is the user's truth — the wielder never ove

asb-who-me