Conversation

Replying to
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.
1
22
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
21
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
23
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
21
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
20
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
40
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.
5
172
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
23
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
39
Replying to
Inertia rules people's choices way more than awareness. Changing state needs pain, fear, or a deep desire borne from greed or curiosity. All beyond a minimum threshold to move the needle. Not easy.
1
1
Replying to
Inertia is a dangerous metaphor to use here. Often code for “you lack willpower” sermonizing. Your model is behaviorist, which I’m rejecting. {inertia, pain, fear, greed, curiosity} suggests a dumb, uncomputed solution. I’m suggesting people constraint-solve for life livability.
Replying to
Maybe so, but I tend to think it tracks the reality of how people think (or not think) about their lives. I have a hard time believing that people are actively constraint solving in awareness. A few might but the majority simply do not function like that.
1
Replying to
Also inertia is not a pejorative diss. A natural equilibrium once set is hard to dislodge even if contains discomfort.
1