There's a personality type that doesn't make decisions easily. They can think of ways the decision might be good - but just as easily, as if playing devil's advocate, they can come up with anti-decision reasoning.
A sample self-dialog:
"I should focus on A."
- "But, if I focus on A, I can't do B or C."
"But, if I don't focus on something, I'll be unfocused, and that's worse than missing out on B or C."
With this logic, the reasoning doesn't actually fall apart. This becomes an intermediary thinking step. It just means the decision doesn't happen at the options level - I need to go higher.
Okay, so I don't need to consider A or B or C, what I need to consider first is F or U ( focused for unfocused. )
If I lead a focused life, I can get a systematic result. I can work a job that pays more than the minimum I need, I can live below my means, and I can invest the rest in a historically predictable vehicle. Then, accounting for the variance, I can plot a linear path.
Now that seems okay. But, now, I'm losing motivation. "That's not exciting." - I say to myself. That doesn't seem to keep me interested in the game. Want to play a game you can NEVER lose? Tic-Tac-Toe is one. But, once you figure out you can also never Win, you lose interest.
Okay, so 'predictability' is where the effort slinks off into the woods to die. That just means this also wasn't the place to decide. Where do we go from here?
If I take it up a notch — still not to philosophical levels — I'll admit I can't predict the future. Plotting a safe course around the high school track might keep me from meeting people in Paris, but it can't preclude me from meeting Parisians who show up for a morning run on the track. Unless, of course, I never get to the track in the morning. But that's a side note.
Okay, so if I take my focus off the known - and instead alight my curious nature with randomness, there's potential to be sufficiently stimulated and not lose all hope.
So, you may ask: A or B or C? To which I might reply: F.U.
A sample self-dialog:
"I should focus on A."
- "But, if I focus on A, I can't do B or C."
"But, if I don't focus on something, I'll be unfocused, and that's worse than missing out on B or C."
With this logic, the reasoning doesn't actually fall apart. This becomes an intermediary thinking step. It just means the decision doesn't happen at the options level - I need to go higher.
Okay, so I don't need to consider A or B or C, what I need to consider first is F or U ( focused for unfocused. )
If I lead a focused life, I can get a systematic result. I can work a job that pays more than the minimum I need, I can live below my means, and I can invest the rest in a historically predictable vehicle. Then, accounting for the variance, I can plot a linear path.
Now that seems okay. But, now, I'm losing motivation. "That's not exciting." - I say to myself. That doesn't seem to keep me interested in the game. Want to play a game you can NEVER lose? Tic-Tac-Toe is one. But, once you figure out you can also never Win, you lose interest.
Okay, so 'predictability' is where the effort slinks off into the woods to die. That just means this also wasn't the place to decide. Where do we go from here?
If I take it up a notch — still not to philosophical levels — I'll admit I can't predict the future. Plotting a safe course around the high school track might keep me from meeting people in Paris, but it can't preclude me from meeting Parisians who show up for a morning run on the track. Unless, of course, I never get to the track in the morning. But that's a side note.
Okay, so if I take my focus off the known - and instead alight my curious nature with randomness, there's potential to be sufficiently stimulated and not lose all hope.
So, you may ask: A or B or C? To which I might reply: F.U.
-thumb.jpg)
abrahamKim
therealbrandonwilson