There's a 4th way, but it works least often. Maybe Method 2.5 fits better: Wait for the problem to fix itself to your level of risk. Ex: This road is blocked. I have a good news it won't be blocked in X days/months/years. Let's just wait until it's a little better for us to travel down and do something else for a just little while. It's a hybrid between waiting for the path to open up for everyone and forcing your way through. Taking a stepping stone between changing the world and changing your solution to the problem.
There's way number 1.5: Solve a different but related problem, which gives you like 80% of the benefits of solving the original problem, but at 20% of the cost. This allows you to experience much less pain without an investment of resources you can't afford.
Two methods I have found useful. If it seems an intractable problem, you've made two goals equal. Figure out the conflicting goals and decide which will give way, such as once I think about it I realize the unspoken goal is I don't want to challenge Mom, M-I-L, Boss, etc.
Second method is 6 steps:
Intel, intel, intel, always be gathering intel.
Clear mind, set aside emotions.
Clear vision of what I want, the more clear and detailed, the more likely I'll get the result I want.
Detailed plan to get from current reality to vision.
Execute plan.
Debrief: what worked, what mistakes, etc.
I do this with emails I'm not even angry about. Wait for your audience to come to you wherever possible. It's a lot cheaper to leverage the momentum of other people than to get them started from zero every time. I find the desire to author angry emails is often a side effect of trying to go too fast.
A favorite of mine: assume a sub-problem has a solution (even though it doesn't), and solve everything else assuming that solution holds.
I find that after I do that, once I have a solution for everything else, a less-general solution to the sub-problem is often sufficient to keep the global solution valid.
There's a 4th way, but it works least often. Maybe Method 2.5 fits better: Wait for the problem to fix itself to your level of risk. Ex: This road is blocked. I have a good news it won't be blocked in X days/months/years. Let's just wait until it's a little better for us to travel down and do something else for a just little while. It's a hybrid between waiting for the path to open up for everyone and forcing your way through. Taking a stepping stone between changing the world and changing your solution to the problem.
There's way number 1.5: Solve a different but related problem, which gives you like 80% of the benefits of solving the original problem, but at 20% of the cost. This allows you to experience much less pain without an investment of resources you can't afford.
Aka "quickfix" or "hack".
Rinse and repeat
Two methods I have found useful. If it seems an intractable problem, you've made two goals equal. Figure out the conflicting goals and decide which will give way, such as once I think about it I realize the unspoken goal is I don't want to challenge Mom, M-I-L, Boss, etc.
Second method is 6 steps: Intel, intel, intel, always be gathering intel. Clear mind, set aside emotions. Clear vision of what I want, the more clear and detailed, the more likely I'll get the result I want. Detailed plan to get from current reality to vision. Execute plan. Debrief: what worked, what mistakes, etc.
Where does "Make the problem worse so someone else fixes it" fit?
It's in own category for higher level beings who make pot holes bigger until it gets fixed.
This is why you schedule angry emails to be sent the next day. Maybe you’ll wake up and realize it’s not a problem at all
I do this with emails I'm not even angry about. Wait for your audience to come to you wherever possible. It's a lot cheaper to leverage the momentum of other people than to get them started from zero every time. I find the desire to author angry emails is often a side effect of trying to go too fast.
It's very interesting that he's talking about start-ups.
I worked for one of Fragner's start-ups and it was an unmitigated disaster in all ways.
He secretly recorded a meeting with myself.
A favorite of mine: assume a sub-problem has a solution (even though it doesn't), and solve everything else assuming that solution holds.
I find that after I do that, once I have a solution for everything else, a less-general solution to the sub-problem is often sufficient to keep the global solution valid.
I wonder what a specific example of this approach would be.
I'm intrigued and would appreciate further examples/explanations too.
I wrote this up as the four disagreements.
https://blog.onepatchdown.net/philosophy/2023/10/03/four-pil...
This misses bad faith, lack of good will and assume an aligned objective (i.e. lack of selfishness)
be first, smart, or cheat.
y