I am the type of person who enjoys reading [[On Productivity|personal productivity]] books in my spare time. It is a means of self examination which allows me to better understand myself and strive for more. Recently I have been reading [[Meditations for Mortals]] by [[Oliver Burkeman]]. For those who haven't read it, there are 4 weeks worth of daily 'meditations' which each share an idea for contemplation. By it's nature some resonate more than others. However, I want to tie my thoughts about [[Oliver Burkeman|Burkeman]]'s freeing notion that we might as well give hard problems a shot to a recent blog post I read on embracing constraints. ### Wisdom in French Simplicity [[Oliver Burkeman|Burkeman]] opens this particular meditation with a french quote: >‘C’est fait par du monde.’ Roughly: ‘People did that.’ While [[Oliver Burkeman|Burkeman]] shares a rough translation, I took a bit of high school french, and I recognized 'monde' to mean world, and so I wanted to unpack the french phrase some more... C’est fait = It's done par du monde = part of the world (meaning of this world — hence the translation that people did that). ### Of This World [[On Faith & Spirituality|Faith]] instills in me that God created the world, but then once that was done, people have been responsible for what came next... all of the good and the bad. It's inspiring to think that: if people have done so much, there is no real reason why any of us couldn't or shouldn't also do astounding things. [[Oliver Burkeman|Burkeman]] suggests: >The main difference between those who accomplish great things anyway and those who don’t is that the former don’t mind not knowing. They were not less flawed or finite than you. Everything they ever did was done by people. This ties beautifully to another meditation shared by [[Oliver Burkeman|Burkeman]], on 'the solace of doubt', the final advice of which bears repeating: >we’re limited in our capacity to get a grip on our infinitely complex reality. It makes little sense to let that hold you back from living in it. As I reflected on my thoughts about [[Oliver Burkeman|Burkeman]]'s meditiations, I couldn't help but think about another article recently shared with me by a friend. In her article, entitled [Smart People Dont Chase Goals; They Create Limits](https://www.joanwestenberg.com/smart-people-dont-chase-goals-they-create-limits/), [[Joan Westenberg]] argues that instead of chasing goals, we should focus on creating constraints that guide our work and decisions. She explains that goals can often mislead us and create a false sense of progress, while constraints help us find clarity and foster creativity. ### When Goals Serve Us Well First, I want to make a disclaimer. Over the years I have used goals to great effect. By having something to strive toward, I have gone further than I might have by being listless. Goals in and of themselves are not bad, and even are the most sensible strategy, especially when we are working on putting in the reps on something we understand well. When training (like in school, or for a race), or in our working lives preparing to ship a product update within an existing (known) product line, goals can make sense. ### The Power of Constraints According to [[Joan Westenberg|Westenberg]]: > It turns out that many of the people doing genuinely innovative work avoid explicit goals entirely. They work within constraints instead. > > ...Constraints do not block [[On Creativity|creativity]]. They aim it. [[Joan Westenberg|Westenberg]] also shares an analogy which is also informative: >A goal is a win condition. Constraints are the rules of the game. But not all games are worth playing. And some of the most powerful forms of progress emerge from people who stopped trying to win and started building new game boards entirely. ### Hypotheses are Constraints: A Scientist's Perspective I think the reason why so many of us bounce off the things we find hard isn't that we are lazy, but rather that the problem space is just too daunting. It is in moments like this where goals become nebulous. To use [[Joan Westenberg|Westenberg]]'s analogy, we forget that games are supposed to be fun and we forget why we are playing the game in the first place. Rather than the world of infinite possibilities, we crave something more finite. As a scientist, it is very common to come up with a hypothesis (a statement that suggests a potential effect). However, it's also helpful to think of the null hypothesis (the condition where there is no effect). This is an attempt to consider the constraints. I believe it also helps to explain why scientists and others who are in the cutting edge of their fields tend to not organize their work around goals. > A goal set at time T is a bet on the future from a position of ignorance. The more volatile the domain, the more brittle that bet becomes. > This is where smart people get stuck. The brighter you are, the more coherent your plans tend to look on paper. But plans are scripts. And reality is improvisation. > > Constraints scale better because they don’t assume knowledge. They are adaptive. They respond to feedback. A small team that decides, "We will not hire until we have product-market fit" has created a constraint that guides decisions without locking in a prediction. A founder who says, "I will only build products I can explain to a teenager in 60 seconds" is using a constraint as a filtering mechanism. ### On Setting the Right Constraints But, [[It's worse than you think|it's worse than you think]], because the problem space is truly infinite and we are the ones setting the constraints. [[Joan Westenberg|Westenberg]] shares an anecdote which illustrates this: >In WWII, when allied bombers returned to base riddled with bullet holes, engineers initially proposed reinforcing the areas with the most damage. But statistician Abraham Wald pointed out the flaw: they were only seeing the planes that made it back. The holes marked the *survivable* areas. The real vulnerabilities were the untouched parts on the returning planes, because the ones hit there never came home. This is why, when you are working on a creative problem it is important to be open minded, work within the constraints you've set but also be willing to adapt to be sure you are solving the **RIGHT** problem. ### Strong Convictions Loosely Held So after all of this reflecting, I want to spend more time thinking about constraints going forward. Especially when I am exploring a problem space where my experience is limited, rather than having a specific goal in mind, I would much rather have strong convictions held loosely pushing the boundaries and always striving for more.