I think you missed the point, he doesn't disagree with your points at all, he's just pointing out that you shouldn't stress yourself out thinking you have to win them all when actually 1 is often all you need.

I’m not sure if the author’s perspective aligns with what I said.

> You don’t need every job to choose you. You just need the one that’s the right fit.

I don’t think anyone expects to pass all the interviews. Seriously, who expects that? The right fit of choices is often limited. You need to deeply understand your weaknesses and strengths to even know what the right fit is. People are usually unaware of their own superpowers. Hard work is the only thing that pays off. Luck comes to those who are prepared.

The problem is the "traditionally" part. What merit does tradition have? None.

Of course tradition has no real merit on its own, but studying the same linguistic tradition is what enables two people to communicate by using language. Unless you manage to complete John Wilkins's project, perhaps, and eliminate the arbitrariness of Wilkins's decisions.

However, in this conversation, we are speaking English, whose words owe their meaning entirely to tradition.

> However, in this conversation, we are speaking English, whose words owe their meaning entirely to tradition.

The meaning of words change over time, so you are wrong, words meaning are not entirely from tradition or else their meaning would not change.

Or if you agree that traditions can change, then what the word meant year 1300 doesn't matter, things has changed since then.

And the word "word" used to mean "to speak", as in make a sound. The word "merit" likely meant "to assign". Current day meaning matters a lot more than what something used to be.

Excluding nurse practitioners & physical therapists but including osteopaths, theologian & chiropractics is insane.