One should not pursue goals that are easily achieved. One must develop an instinct for what one can just barely achieve through one’s greatest efforts.
When I try to learn stuff, I sometimes get good results from the opposite approach: instead of doing the hardest thing, do the easiest thing that counts as progress. In other words, instead of grabbing the highest rung I can reach, I grab the rung I can reach comfortably. Then I take my time to absolutely conquer that rung with perfect technique and control, doing many many repetitions. Then move on to the next.
Advantages of this approach: it’s easier, less jerky and more methodical, I can spare attention for ironing out any mistakes in the basics… And most importantly, it feels like I have more “momentum”. When my workouts or training sessions look like this, random events are much less likely to derail my schedule of leveling up.
This doesn’t seem rational. One must develop an instinct for what one really needs to/wants to/should achieve, and judge whether maximium effort (which I assume would be required to achieve the barely-achievable) is worth the return on that investment.
But if you put out maximum effort, you can leave longevity and/or quality on the table.
Silverbacks, pitchers, office workers, day-to-day-life, running, eating…
Short term maximum effort might detract from long-term maximum utility. The cost/benefits analysis is at times subjective. “Utility” can mean different things to different people. “Utility”, as I interpret in a Rationalist context has a very specific almost “economic” meaning. But you can choose to reduce effort and not push the envelop, and go home, have dinner, relax, and enjoy your life. Some people might refer to that as utility, others as low hanging fruit, still others as a healthy balance.
Unsourced; attributed to Albert Einstein.
Or, I could work out what I want and achieve that? There is even a time to focus on a goal over another purely because it is easier.
When I try to learn stuff, I sometimes get good results from the opposite approach: instead of doing the hardest thing, do the easiest thing that counts as progress. In other words, instead of grabbing the highest rung I can reach, I grab the rung I can reach comfortably. Then I take my time to absolutely conquer that rung with perfect technique and control, doing many many repetitions. Then move on to the next.
Advantages of this approach: it’s easier, less jerky and more methodical, I can spare attention for ironing out any mistakes in the basics… And most importantly, it feels like I have more “momentum”. When my workouts or training sessions look like this, random events are much less likely to derail my schedule of leveling up.
This doesn’t seem rational. One must develop an instinct for what one really needs to/wants to/should achieve, and judge whether maximium effort (which I assume would be required to achieve the barely-achievable) is worth the return on that investment.
If you’re not putting in maximum effort, you’re leaving utility on the table.
But if you put out maximum effort, you can leave longevity and/or quality on the table. Silverbacks, pitchers, office workers, day-to-day-life, running, eating… Short term maximum effort might detract from long-term maximum utility. The cost/benefits analysis is at times subjective. “Utility” can mean different things to different people. “Utility”, as I interpret in a Rationalist context has a very specific almost “economic” meaning. But you can choose to reduce effort and not push the envelop, and go home, have dinner, relax, and enjoy your life. Some people might refer to that as utility, others as low hanging fruit, still others as a healthy balance.