What If You Had 200 Years to Get Good at Life?

Let’s start with a weird question: If you lived for 200 years, would you actually become a genius? Or would you just… be you, but older?

That’s the thought experiment that’s been rattling around my head lately. We all like to imagine that immortality would turn us into polyglot violinists who’ve read every book and solved cold fusion. But deep down, I wonder: Would I really learn Mandarin in Year 87? Or would I just keep rewatching The Office forever?

This question nagged at me. We often assume endless time guarantees growth, but what if it doesn’t? What if effort, not years, is what actually changes us?

So I tested it. I spent a week learning three things I’d dismissed as “not for me”:

• Rubik’s Cube (a puzzle I’d avoided for years)

• Poetry (which always felt like decoding riddles)

• Long Division (a math gap I’d shrugged off since grade school)

The goal wasn’t perfection. It was to see if leaning into the discomfort of learning could shift something in how I think.

What I Learned:

Rubik’s Cube taught me patience. Solving it felt less like genius and more like untangling headphones—repetitive, frustrating, then suddenly satisfying.

Poetry surprised me. Sitting with a single poem (A Coat by Yeats) for days, I realized how much we miss by skimming surfaces. Words I’d glossed over started clicking into place.

Long Division was humbling. Schools may skip it now, but there’s value in wrestling with the “why” behind the steps.

The goal wasn’t mastery. It was to see if deliberate, awkward effort could crack open my brain a little.

The bigger takeaway? Growth isn’t passive. It’s not about waiting for time or talent to kick in. It’s about choosing the struggle—the kind that feels awkward, slow, and utterly unglamorous.

If you’ve ever wondered whether you’re “stuck” as the person you are now, I shared the full experiment in this video. No flashy tricks or life-hacks—just a candid look at what happens when you trade “I can’t” for “I’ll try.”