3 ms·
Previous discussion on HN concerning the same slides (minus the guys comments): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2106553 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=
by rednum 16y ago
Previous discussion on HN concerning the same slides (minus the guys comments): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2106553 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2106553
tldr: start small, don't set bullshit goals, it acually is hard. much harder than you think
- gnufied 16y agoAha, I did not see that. Thanks for pointing out. I liked and appreciate MenTaLguY's commentary anyways.
- Datasta 16y agoI missed this the first time around, so I'm glad it got popular again. Good presentation.
- praptak 16y ago"it acually is hard. much harder than you think" Actually "assuming that behavior change is difficult" is listed as the tenth mistake.
- joe_the_user 16y agoAh, "It's hard but it can't be difficult"... Paradoxes like this always frustrated me so I worked-out a more concrete model for these change systems: You've got "area of behavior" which you've got good conscious control over and where you can plan and work hard. You've got another "another area of behavior" where you don't have much conscious control and you tend to screw-up in. You want to work hard within the area you do control to create a framework where things are relatively easy for you in the area you don't control. You don't want to just throw a lot of effort at the area you don't control, you don't want to discourage yourself concerning the area you don't control. You want to have clearly understandable goals in the area you don't control. And so you want the "heavy lifting" to be within the area you do control. Now, "hard" is for the work in creating your framework. "not difficult" is for the experience you have within the framework. Make sense?
- praptak 16y agoDefinitely. I think that it applies to their method too - setting up the triggers and making the behaviour easier is the "hard" part within your control.