You've refuted a claim about my lived experience about practicing self discipline leading to better self discipline, with a claim that my lived experience is false. Your claim is based on literally nothing, not even your own lived experience, just a claim that I'm wrong.

Next you claim I don't even enjoy my own way because ???? and that my way is not a reflection of reality, despite the reality for most people being consistent with the concept of "if you practice thing, you get better at thing". Then you contradict your statement about me not enjoying my way because it's bullshit I made up to feel pleasant, followed by an assumption that my reality is shitty.

This is all a very strange way of arguing, and I'm not sure who you're trying to win over at this point. Why does this hill matter so much to you that you need to make these claims?