Always remember that sometimes it is your expectations that are the problem, they can hold you back. This sounds counterintuitive, but think about it: it is old philosophical news that we act upon our emotional rather than rational motivations. Our expectations are often our long and hard sought rational musings over possible situations, and when we finally act those musings often do not coincide with how we feel.
But should we, as rational beings , act upon our emotions? Our intellect informs us that we are acting emotionally and tries to override how we feel with what we think. Do we act or do we think? We are capable of both, but eventually we will act upon our emotions.
This is problematic for rational-capable beings such as humans. We think knowing all along that we will act emotionally: we have no choice. We know that we will act emotionally and that knowledge is not enough: this is the secret.
Our expectations will always be squandered, they will never be met because they are the product of our understanding. My friend, Chris Ransick, and I have often debated (over scotch of course) terminology (he is a poet and I a philosopher/farmer). I think that we are arguing this exact point: the intellect is our ticket to freewill, but we will consistently act emotionally knowing that we give up our freewill.
This is not a new discussion, it is centuries old in philosophy, and it will continue even given the knowledge that how we feel will determine the outcomes of what we think. This, I believe, is the human condition: we must continue to think seriously about what we feel and why we feel that way.