EsSample is a model of how we work, how our minds work.
As an operating model, it provides a framework for understanding and action. We apply this understanding and action to our own mind, to the minds of others, and to organisations of minds. Applied inwards (from the conscious attention you are using now) they optimise your inner workings. Applied outwards, they optimise your perspective, priorities and solutions.

EsSample says that it is the discrepancies between the internal model and external models that are the source of motivation.
(This source is not even referenced in mainstream study and literature. Even the most insightful of sources (Panksepp’s 7 primary affects of play, care, seeking, grief, rage, lust, fear) doesn’t propose anything around which motivations can accrete and crystallise. Evidence based practices, and science itself, lead future parenting, culture & education towards EsSample. These tend to chip away at the edges of inherited convention and practices, and their replacements tend to be closer to EsSample. But there is no evidence of the larger leap to EsSample).
The deeper and more profound the discrepancy, the more existential the angst and the less easy to identify.
The more superficial the discrepancy, the more superficial the resulting itch and satisfying scratch and action.

(Regarding 5 year plans as a method of fufillment: It is not possible to write 5 year plans for existential angst, because 1) it is not possible for oneself to identify the unconscious cause that is most likely that deep discrepancy, and 2) there are few practitioners of EsSample out there to assist making the triangulation and identification that is more practical to be achieved from an outside participant. (The current nearest ploys to elicit discrepancies are off-piste programmes such as Landmark, and approaches such as mindfulness).
A 5 year plan of essentially will satisfy those without existential angst, where tangible actions satisfy, and can be lined up for undertaking. It’s possible that someone has a 5 year plan as a cover for a more prominent existential program, but unlikely and was not declared as the motive for the plan.)

Those without existential angst are either those with no discrepancies, or those that have resolved them. Both the above will be at least ‘self-actualised’, as described in’s_hierarchy_of_needs which cites Einstein as an example. Maslow’s hierarchy is my most recent new reading, but there will have been better before that I’ve either forgotten or not remembered. (EsSample reckons such wise persons should’ve figured out EsSample for the collective, and rather than just behaving enlightened).

Under mindfulness I suggest the mind’s ability to hear enough of their unconscious to work with it depends on decoupling and conscious enablement.

But these minds have no self-awareness to navigate with or communicate about. They respond to the environment and the usual influences, but without negotiation or existential humour. On a bell curve measuring this capability, the top percentile in smart animals have more of this than the bottom percentile in humans.
If there are discrepancies down there, the owner either doesn’t detect them or is not intolerant of them. The net effect is that EsSample will never mean anything to them, but they are still influenced by its implementation in practices, policies and guidelines (which is EsSolution).

Those with existential angst must employ EsSample and its tools to identify and act on causes and exercise them.
I’ve already said that the specific causes are discrepancies. Describing them as such may give you a new insight, possibly catalyse enlightenment and multiple resolutions, but it’s unlikely. (If only because you’ve been living with them for years and not figured them out).
The general effect of the tools is to place the centre of gravity of your mind’s eye (your evaluation, your internal observer) outside yourself, such that you experience yourself as part of the environment making up the noise of daily living. So your entire experience is no longer the external world happening to you. Instead, you notice that you are contributing, indeed fabricating, much of that living. Instead, you no longer ride yourself (your internal model) so seamlessly that you identify with it.
The shift in perspective and priorities is like moving ‘your nose against the windscreen’ of experiencing life, to that of an ‘arms straight’ driver. With your nose against the windscreen, your experience of events hitting the windscreen (and of events inside the car) is instantaneous and reactive, and there is no time or capability between the stimulus and response. No space to recall and reflect.
The ‘arms straight’ driver not only has a wider view or more hitting the windscreen, but can see that much of the activity is created by the driver and the car itself and the passenger. Such a driver has the space and time to see more and recall and reflect before responding. And the response will also include accommodating the contribution of the vagaries of self and car.

In line with it being uncommunicative, the unconscious modeller is more like an alien resident. None of these nouns and adjectives are prominent in mainstream disciplines studying any aspect of the brain or mind or behaviour.
The methods do not give any increased communication from conscious to unconscious, and vice versa. At least in a manner that is detectable separately from the other changes that occur.
Instead, they change the wavelength and place you listen to and feel from. They have reminders to disconnect conventional and inherited values while doing this. They tell you to what’s important and what having discrepancy in listening and feeling to leaks from that unconscious world. The net effect is that they give distance from yourself, and add the capability to triangulate and characterise what makes a difference to you.
The principal challenge in the external world is to invert your listening from what you’re aware of to what you’re not aware of. From what fills the airwaves to what is squeezed out. From what is accepted to what is real and not seen. From what is accepted as normal to what it really is. From what you see to what it expresses.
The principal challenge in the internal world is to change your listening from what are accepted wins to what is affirming for you. To distinguish positives arising from habits and from your short term wiring, from positives arising from your identity.