From very early on, we’re Trained/Prepared on multiple fronts to survive in life so much that we abandon our intuition and start behaving on a formulaic basis. This type of lifestyle (where you’re always simulating situations to tackle) requires effort and every second feels like a juncture where decisions are to be made. This sort of lifestyle arises from the assumption that patterns constitute life and you’ll do fine given that you master the patterns. This breeds a society where a situation is filtered through the training dataset to find whether we can model the situation. Unbeknownst to the followers of this philosophy, their intuitive capabilities are being sidelined. I’m not against Training regiments, rather the purpose of the regiment should serve to hone the intuition. The problem with too much training is that it gets preachy quickly and serves a gospel to the follower. Instead of being in a zone where you let your mind take control and react to situations, you’re left with the mind being in control of somebody (of course metaphorically ) and driving the situation. Now this is a spot of bother because you’re not acting naturally and playing by the rules that are established by the person who designed your preparation material. This can be observed with most of the politicians when they’re on important debates, they act by the political consultants and strategists. But some great debaters react to situations instead of facing them. And Vivek Ramasamy is one among them. When he was pressed on to take sides on a contentious political issue in All In Pod, he issued a disclaimer saying that he is forming the arguments on the fly and are subject to change as and when new evidence is found, which is a lot honest than just sticking to the rhetoric imposed by the campaign managers. Training in itself isn’t necessarily bad, but not at the cost of intuition. Ultimately, one should forego training after developing intuition and letting it drive the situation.