It’s an equilibrium shift. They’re restating and resolving their “life” problem in a new way around shifted constraints. Neither you, nor they know where they’ll land. It won’t be a simple “they’ll do more X, less Y” or “X instead of Y”. They’ll reinvent who they are.
-
Show this thread
-
True even for deceptively structured life changes like hiring someone away from another company. They aren’t just changing jobs for more money, to do the same thing for more. They’re usually reconfiguring their “life” solution.
2 replies 1 retweet 21 likesShow this thread -
Significance of this: positive change in a life usually means more creative freedom. Results unpredictable. You can go the other way with children or insecure adults (Ie add or tighten constraints to change their life solutions) but doing it to competent adults is coercion.
1 reply 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
The only situation where it’s difficult to operate this way in is when the other person is a close/intimate part of your life. Because in that case your life solutions are entangled. You can’t shift a constraint in theirs without shifting it in yours as well.
1 reply 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
This is codependency. You are part of their solution and they are part of yours. Change both or neither. And given the unpredictability, any shift could strengthen or weaken the connection itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
Life trajectory agency is like space mission orbit design agency. There’s a small delta vee onboard fuel budget to work with after launch, enough for small course corrections. All bigger moves have to come from gravity slingshots.
1 reply 0 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
Tip: if an idea seems to require “willpower”, don’t suggest it. “Willpower” is the phlogiston or luminiferous aether of life advice. There’s no such thing. It doesn’t exist. Show me a sudden shift in “willpower” levels and I’ll show you a constraint that has recently moved.
7 replies 58 retweets 180 likesShow this thread -
Note. This thread is NOT about “changing incentives” in the economics sense. Changing incentives is about causing predictable changes driven by a fixed solution. That works for things like offering a discount to drive sales. Changing constraints causes an unpredictable re-solving
1 reply 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
This is not a behaviorist approach OR a cognitivist approach. It’s a complex system gambling approach. You’re betting that disrupting an equilibrium is more likely to result in a better new one than worse. It’s a change-is-good bet.
5 replies 1 retweet 41 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
I want like, a bunch of examples here to understand this properly
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I’m afraid I do not offer exemplification services
-
-
Replying to @vgr @utotranslucence
My cave man interpretation is play with boundaries. We think it's, Given a set of constraints solve for X But instead, Given solution X solve for constraints?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.