Description

TK has transcended Fridays.

This is the first edition of the new format of the podcast. Monday episodes with TK, featuring deep dives into philosophy, education, tech, and personal development.

This week is all about reframing limitations and selling your strengths.

Why do so many people argue for their limitations?

In the face of opportunities, people start talking about their weakness or why they aren’t the person for the job. They don’t even get started before they tell you why you won’t want to hire them.

What motivates people to argue for their limitations and how can you do a better job of selling your strengths?

Get the answer plus:

Favorite basketball movies
Cubs win the World Series & Passive aggressive church league softball prayers
Don’t argue for your limitations
Why job posting requirements are always flexible
People want to be sold
People are debating implications, but they think they’re debating facts
The power of turning statements into questions
How TK learned coaching from Columbo
Applying your Socratic method to yourself
Modern day challenges don’t mean life was better in the past
Why we find ourselves fighting for things we don’t actually want
Follow your dreams, but let your dreams follow you
TK’s audition for a Nascar commercial & when will he go back to acting?
How can you get around limitations and unmet requirements during your job search?

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

I'm an entrepreneur, thinker, and communicator dedicated to the relentless pursuit of freedom. I'm the founder and CEO of Praxis, an intensive ten-month program combining real world business experience with the best of online education for those who want more than college.

discussions

  • What was the first issue you struggled with or were a champion for with regard to libertarianism? This can be any topic that you ran into whether you had just realized you were a libertarian, or it was part of your transition.

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • A lot of my favorite libertarian literature is on the shorter side; more like long essays or pamphlets rather than book-length treatises (I love those for my own enjoyment, of course, but it’s nigh impossible to recommend an hour-length lecture to a friend, let alone an actual book). A couple of my favorite examples are Against Intellectual Property (Kinsella), Chaos Theory (Murphy), The Production of Security (Molinari), and The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (Boetie). I would like to find more works of similar length, especially for the purpose of recommending short yet mind-blowing reads to friends/family. What are your favorites?

    Jump to Discussion Post 12 replies
  • Over the past five months or so, I admit I’ve been intrigued—indeed, perhaps obsessed—with the American elections. More specifically, I’ve been fascinated by the Trump phenomenon and by the stunning hordes of people that either support him and hate him. The time I’ve spent learning about American Democracy has made me realize that my previous opposition to statism as a whole, as well as my rejection of voting on principle, was founded on abstract and philosophical discussion alone. I had an utter lack of experience and interest in politics. Throughout my whole life, the political process has seemed hopelessly corrupt and out of reach. It was easy for me to conclude that voting was hopelessly pointless and probably immoral. Today my views have changed, not much, but enough that I feel compelled to talk about my thoughts and not just keep them to myself. This is an exploration of a self-defense case for voting that is consistent with Voluntaryist principles, as well as a discussion on the potential merits of voting for Donald Trump to advance the cause of liberty. Before I make that case however, let me lay down two essential facts that have propelled me to this point. The Voluntaryst Self Defense Case for Voting Trump

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies
  • On libertarianism, reaction, and Trump Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Whenever a person who opposes the military-industrial complex speaks out against it, neocons predictably say that this person is criticizing the people who are giving him the right to say such things. Hopefully, everyone here knows that this is nonsense, but how best to explain it? I want to write an article on this and make sure I cover all the bases.

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies