I suppose I, personally, don't find much self-fulfillment or self-enrichment by thinking of myself as an object of destiny, as you do. I'll actually let on a little more of what I actually believe now, and say that I think I do believe that life is determined, in that all actions have consequences, so all actions and consequences since the beginning of time have led up to the present moment and lead the present moment into the future. But knowing that hasn't changed my life much, and I don't feel more enlightened for believing it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "we can make observations and obtain a general understanding of what makes us who we are." Observations of what? Past events/actions? How does accepting that there is no free will allow us to obtain a general understanding of what makes us who we are? "What makes us who we are" is the culmination of past experiences, in my view. Whether free will is accepted or not doesn't change that, other than to say "the culmination of past experiences makes us who we are and will continue to ordain who we will become" and "the culmination of past experiences makes us who we are and we can use that to make the best decisions for us in the future." It seems that, to you, this distinction is profound and rewarding to analyze, but I don't believe that feeling you have is universal, nor necessary to have an enriching life. I don't know why you believe people are afraid of thinking of themselves as not what modern society tells them they are. Artists have for years challenged what it means to be human, and tried to capture or question what the human experience means. I don't think it is the norm that people do not question who they are or their place in life like you say they do, rather I think most people meet this question in their teens years, in some form.
It sounds less like you advocate challenging free will and more like you advocate looking at the past to obtain a better future. I see accepting and denying free will as two ways of understanding the universe, but ultimately the goal is the same: learning from the past, and working towards a better future. The main difference being whether we think we have a choice in making that future, or if we are naturally creating that future by virtue of living.
It sounds like you're assuming that the universe is ordered in such a way that, if we could analyze the past, much like analyzing the solar system or DNA, that we could then make predictions, or otherwise use this knowledge beneficially. It remains to be seen, however, if this is truth, or if it's even possible. That you hold this understanding of the universe as a stepping stone towards creating the best future is, I think, a bit too hopeful. I would rather us spend time on developing the future, not on trying to trace back the fabric of space such that we can predict the future.
My last point (because I too have made too many) is to question the motivation to be "successful in the universe." I don't even know what that means, and am unconvinced that that is what we should all be working towards.
EDIT: ...Is there really choice when literally only one option is available?