7 ms·

Forget Setting Goals. Focus on Systems Instead

123 points by rukshn 13y ago

jonsen 13y ago
Systemics is an undervalued competence area. It should be taught in school. (Before coding.)
- enos_feedler 13y ago
  This is interesting. Do you have a reading list or any good resources on the topic?
  - jonsen 13y ago
    I don't really know what to recommend. Maybe An Introduction to General Systems Thinking by Gerald M. Weinberg is a good starting point for a CS-person. "Education is what remains when what has been learned has been forgotten", Skinner, I believe. Well what is education then? I believe it is the holistic coherent state of mind which hoovers above individual subjects. But nobody tells you how to acquire that. In school we are only taught separate subjects. Nobody guides us in making a coherent hole of it. So that we can if not fully understand then at least recognize and respect the complexity and dynamics everywhere in the world around us.
  - petercooper 13y ago
    I'm currently doing a course on systems thinking for an MSc in software engineering and our main text book is Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World by Ray Ison. Oddly it has almost nothing to do with climate change but I'm finding it a pretty good primer to systemic inquiry and the terminology involved. I'm also finding learning about systems practice is making a huge impact on how I consider my work and my role within it. My goal in taking the MSc was to eventually become a "real" engineer and I'm finding systems to be a hugely important first step with that.
    - ridicter 13y ago
      This book looks fascinating! Thanks for mentioning it. (I do a lot of climate change related activism, and I'm always on the lookout for resources like these!)
  - calinet6 13y ago
    As it relates to production process, and management, with the goal of quality: seek out W. Edwards Deming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming. It's not terribly accessible, but it is pragmatic and wise. Highly recommend his book Out of the Crisis, in which he describes the ideas he put in place to pull Japan out of the post WWII recession and turn them into an economic power respected for quality.
  - enos_feedler 13y ago
    I'll be sure to check all of these out. Thanks!
- supersystem 13y ago
  "Hacking" largely used to be about systems, including the arbitrariness of them. I guess it's become more focused on "being very good at a single thing". I think you can still see the dependency between the two by the way others view "hackers" and how "hackers" view themselves.
SeanA208 13y ago
This is an encouraging piece of advice to those who have set goals and had trouble achieving them. Focusing on process allows you to revel in the success you feel from "ordinary" work and gives you the encouragement you need to push through to the next day.
CookWithMe 13y ago
This does only work if the system guarantees that you'll reach whatever you set out to do. I don't think that is the case most of the time. Even in his example: > In the last 12 months, I've written over 115,000 words. The typical book is about 50,000 to 60,000 words, so I have basically written two books this year. No, he hasn't written two books. A book is usually not a collection of random articles, but has a clear structure. Furthermore, only writing the book will never get it published. Whether one wants to self-publish or work with a publisher, both things will need a significant time/work investment at various points in time, and will most likely not be covered in his (initial) system. Similarly, if you wanted to launch a software business, you'd probably create a system that includes writing software. If you're good, it may also include talking to users. If you'd forget about your goal and just followed that system, you'd never launch. Even if you arrive at a state where you want to release your software, you need to (consciously) break your system and care about one-off tasks like setting up a company, terms of service and what-not.
- TheBiv 13y ago
  I don't think that the author disagrees with you. The headline is definetly hyperbole, but he does not discredit the values goals can bring. In his own words "None of this is to say that goals are useless. However, I've found that goals are good for planning your progress and systems are good for actually making progress."
sc90 13y ago
To simply put it:Focus on the process, not the result.
TheBiv 13y ago
A few years ago, I thought that I loved entrepreneurship bc it gave me the ability to be creative and to build whatever a I wanted, whenever I wanted. Then one of my mentors gave me a challenge: 1) In 15 seconds, write down all of the things that you can think about, in the entire world, that is the color white...(I could only muster up about 2 things)...Then, 2) in 15 seconds, write down all of the things that you can think about, in you refrigerator, that are white...(I came up with about 8 things) This was then led to him describing how I should not think about the entrepreneurship life as an unlimiting venture, he argued that I should put limits on myself and develop a process to get to whatever goal I set out to achieve. This article echoes that sentiment of focusing on making the process more efficient and use the goals as a way to plan, but don't focus on the goal, focus on the process. I really liked this article. Thank you for sharing!
- randallsquared 13y ago
  On the 2 vs 8 things... It's clear what this was meant to convey by your mentor, and I'm glad it worked for you, but those aren't the same kind of thing. Things in your refrigerator which are white only happen to be white, but things in the entire world that are white are white by definition.
  - TheBiv 13y ago
    I can honestly admit that I was trying to follow the subtlety of that statement, but yet I don't follow. I guess my question is how are things in my refrigerator only white by happen-stance and not by definition? As everything that I see (regardless of where I see it at) is a product of my own definition, so that should not be of matter. What should be of matter is how quickly I am able to recall the things that are only defined by the scope I place them in (be in everywhere or in my refrigerator)
    - justinpombrio 13y ago
      There's a difference between "prototypical objects" and "specific objects". For instance, apples are red, but that specific apple you have in your hand might be green. Likewise, people have 10 fingers, but my grandmother only has 9. I suspect the parent thought this distinction was hidden in the question? But I don't see any reason you couldn't name a specific object in response to the "everything in the world" question. I also can't think of many objects that are white but not prototypically white. So maybe I've misunderstood too.
tim333 13y ago
Reminds me a bit of Scott Adams thing http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121813075903866 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230462610...
- amuresan 13y ago
  exactly what I was thinking, it feels like it's one of those things that sticks to you once you understand it.
- robotresearcher 13y ago
  No kidding. It's the same idea. It bothers me when ideas are presented without even a nod towards their history. I guess all writers are not obliged to do scholarship like journalists and academics, but I wish the publication would point out that we are not reading journalism right now. Even if this guy developed this stuff all by himself, the fact that these are not globally original ideas should be acknowledged. Adams' book cheerfully points out that none of his stuff is really new apart from his personal anecdotes.
  - incision 13y ago
    >"It bothers me when ideas are presented without even a nod towards their history. I guess all writers are not obliged to do scholarship like journalists and academics, but I wish the publication would point out that we are not reading journalism right now." I think it might be easier to just recognize that an awfully lot of the web isn't any kind of journalism. For instance, this is a reposted blog entry on a site full of "Top X" lists. The context is the disclaimer. ">Even if this guy developed this stuff all by himself, the fact that these are not globally original ideas should be acknowledged. Adams' book cheerfully points out that none of his stuff is really new apart from his personal anecdotes." Why? One is a 1300 word blog post, the other is a 257 page book with a major publisher. It would make for an arduous life if everyone was required to research and/or acknowledge the first recorded instance of every notion they have before sharing.
    - joshsegall 13y ago
jjoe 13y ago
The article went on to describe in hundreds of words when it really needed one and that's methodology. You have to be methodical in your approach to success. Rinse and repeat the effort every day until things start taking shape.
- calinet6 13y ago
  It's larger point was that how you think about success matters very much. If you focus on your goals, you'll lose sight of process; but if you focus on correct process, you don't need to have sight of your goals.
Fasebook 13y ago
If you don't focus on your own goals, you're just working for someone else.
mkrecny 13y ago
Aren't 'systems' just smaller recurring goalz?
- incompatible 13y ago
  They are more like the means used to reach the goal. But if you get rid of the goal, there's no need for the system. So I think his idea "Forget setting goals" fails.
mkrecny 13y ago
Aren't 'systems' just smaller recurring goalz?
supercoder 13y ago
I forgot everything about the article when the blocking newsletter popup appeared.
xux 13y ago
The problem with focusing on the system is that it gives you an excuse to procrastinate. Last set too hard? Well I workout everyday anyways! That bag of chips is irresistible? Well I ate healthy all week! The Goal vs System approach work for two distinct types of people. If you generlaly like laid back, passive work (ex. stable job with a a few nice sideprojects, worksout everyday, has a nice rythmic life), then the System approach is for you. You're already pretty content with your life, and everything you do should work toward maximizing stability and hapiness. The goal approach is different. If you're a frequent procrstinator; if you have brief bursts of productivity followed by long lulls of laziness; then goal is for you. Goal forces you to deal with situations that you'd rather procrastinate, essentially keeping your energy in check. For most entrepreneur, I'd imagine the second approach would work better.
- calinet6 13y ago
  This doesn't discredit goals, they're still very useful, and your process must align with your goals to help reach them. The way you'd think about procrastination, for example, wouldn't be to simply set goals of productivity, but to find the underlying causes of your procrastination. Often this is a lack of organization, a lack of system to determine what to do next, a physiological issue, a lack of time to meet your basic needs, or a lack of ability. All of these have systemic roots, and systematic solutions. Improve your system and get your tasks out of your head (GTD), fix your metabolism (systematic exercise, diet, etc), change your schedule to make time for your unmet needs, or systematically learn skills that allow you to progress faster. Systems thinking isn't about ignoring goals, but rather about solving the roadblocks, which are usually systemic in nature due to the natural complexity of human nature. Rarely are solutions so simple as "want your goal harder." Look one or two levels deeper, and you get into systems thinking, and you find better solutions that are more effective. You still have to want your goal, but you'll be more successful at actually reaching it.
  - xux 13y ago
    What we're discussing here isn't how to maximize happiness. An entrepreneur's job isn't to be happy, it's to get things done. I specifically bring up entrepreneurs because 1.) I assume most people here can connect and 2.) it's one of the professions where short term productivity fix (2-3 years) is more important than bringing a lifetime of "fixes" Yes you can solve your underlying procrastination problem. But assuming it's an underlying psychological issue, can you genuinely undue decades of "damage" in short enough timeframe to run your company? Simply put, there just isnt' time for you to accomplish whatever habit you didn't have before but want to gain by using a system. That's why a system is great for people who are fine with a stable, long-term job. But for an entrepreneur, a "quick fix" solution of using goals will get you further.
hassy 13y ago
If you liked this you should read The Score Will Take Care Of Itself by Bill Walsh who lead San Francisco 49ers to win three Super Bowls. Jack Dorsey recommended this book at the recent Startup School http://www.amazon.com/The-Score-Takes-Care-Itself/dp/1591843472 http://www.amazon.com/The-Score-Takes-Care-Itself/dp/1591843... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEQawgkCMOU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEQawgkCMOU
personlurking 13y ago
I read this last night in some off-hand article I came across but really liked it. I'm translating from Portuguese, but here's what it said. "You know those things that we start doing almost by chance and they end up becoming a goal in life? There's a lot of people that choose their profession like this: do something because you want to and then that thing ends up being so important that it lasts many, many years. It doesn't mean that it's any less important than the projects that already start out with large goals." There's obviously something to be said for marrying the two. I've been captivated by a subject matter for my entire adult life (though I'm only in my 30s) but I never seriously tried to make it into a business. I never made it a matter of 'sink or swim' and I think that's been my problem.
mathattack 13y ago
Systems thinking and process thinking are very big. Built to Last by Collins covers this a lot. They don't skip goals (it's a big part of it) but much of the book is about soft things done right. Leadership is huge. Building systems is huge.
lowbloodsugar 13y ago
>In the last 12 months, I've written over 115,000 words. The typical book is about 50,000 to 60,000 words, so I have basically written two books this year. >Can you imagine if I had made it my goal to write two books this year? Just writing that sentence stresses me out. This is precisely why the goal is important. This guy focused on the system, and instead of writing two books, produced twice as many words of not-books. At college I had some friends who wrote many extremely cool game demos. Not one published a game. I focused on publishing a game. It turns out that writing a game involves a hell of a lot more than writing a demo (a lot of boring shit actually). I expect it is the same with books and online articles. 115,000 words of articles doesn't make a book, and I expect doesn't require the practitioner to develop a system capable of writing books.
daphneokeefe 13y ago
This point is made very well in the book How To Fail At Almost Everything by Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, an excellent read http://www.amazon.com/How-Fail-Almost-Everything-Still/dp/1591846919/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390192643&sr=1-1&keywords=scott+adams+-+how+to+fail+at+almost+everything+and+still+win+big http://www.amazon.com/How-Fail-Almost-Everything-Still/dp/15...
- cpayne 13y ago
  Am I the only one who thinks the article is just a summary of Scott Adam's book?
  - someotheridiot 13y ago
    That was my first thought - "he just ripped off Scott!"
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - visakanv 13y ago
      Scott wrote a Goals vs Systems blogpost before he wrote the book: http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/goals_vs_systems/ http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/goals_vs_systems/ EDIT: oops, this was after the book. The one before the book is as follows: http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/systems/ http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/systems/
hahahafail 13y ago
> For a minute or two, I thought about doing my final set. Then, I reminded myself that I plan to do this for the rest of my life and decided to call it a day. Never.
aymeric 13y ago
As part of setting systems for yourself, set your environment to make fulfilling these systems easier. I call it "friction less systems" for the lack of a better term. 1. Make it easier to exercise everyday by choosing sports that are close to home (or at home). 2. Make it easier to not indulge in junk food by not having junk food at home. 3. Make it easier to drink more water by having the same water bottle as part of the gear you carry with you. 4. Make it easy to not waste time watching TV by not having a TV. 5. Make it easy to not waste time playing video games by not uninstalling video games once you are done indulging in them.
- toumhi 13y ago
  So Aymeric, you stopped playing video games? ;-)

123 points by rukshn 13y ago

jonsen 13y ago

Systemics is an undervalued competence area. It should be taught in school. (Before coding.)

enos_feedler 13y ago
This is interesting. Do you have a reading list or any good resources on the topic?
- jonsen 13y ago
  I don't really know what to recommend. Maybe An Introduction to General Systems Thinking by Gerald M. Weinberg is a good starting point for a CS-person. "Education is what remains when what has been learned has been forgotten", Skinner, I believe. Well what is education then? I believe it is the holistic coherent state of mind which hoovers above individual subjects. But nobody tells you how to acquire that. In school we are only taught separate subjects. Nobody guides us in making a coherent hole of it. So that we can if not fully understand then at least recognize and respect the complexity and dynamics everywhere in the world around us.
- petercooper 13y ago
  I'm currently doing a course on systems thinking for an MSc in software engineering and our main text book is Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World by Ray Ison. Oddly it has almost nothing to do with climate change but I'm finding it a pretty good primer to systemic inquiry and the terminology involved. I'm also finding learning about systems practice is making a huge impact on how I consider my work and my role within it. My goal in taking the MSc was to eventually become a "real" engineer and I'm finding systems to be a hugely important first step with that.
  - ridicter 13y ago
    This book looks fascinating! Thanks for mentioning it. (I do a lot of climate change related activism, and I'm always on the lookout for resources like these!)
- calinet6 13y ago
  As it relates to production process, and management, with the goal of quality: seek out W. Edwards Deming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming. It's not terribly accessible, but it is pragmatic and wise. Highly recommend his book Out of the Crisis, in which he describes the ideas he put in place to pull Japan out of the post WWII recession and turn them into an economic power respected for quality.
- enos_feedler 13y ago
  I'll be sure to check all of these out. Thanks!
supersystem 13y ago
"Hacking" largely used to be about systems, including the arbitrariness of them. I guess it's become more focused on "being very good at a single thing". I think you can still see the dependency between the two by the way others view "hackers" and how "hackers" view themselves.

SeanA208 13y ago

This is an encouraging piece of advice to those who have set goals and had trouble achieving them. Focusing on process allows you to revel in the success you feel from "ordinary" work and gives you the encouragement you need to push through to the next day.

CookWithMe 13y ago

This does only work if the system guarantees that you'll reach whatever you set out to do. I don't think that is the case most of the time. Even in his example: > In the last 12 months, I've written over 115,000 words. The typical book is about 50,000 to 60,000 words, so I have basically written two books this year. No, he hasn't written two books. A book is usually not a collection of random articles, but has a clear structure. Furthermore, only writing the book will never get it published. Whether one wants to self-publish or work with a publisher, both things will need a significant time/work investment at various points in time, and will most likely not be covered in his (initial) system. Similarly, if you wanted to launch a software business, you'd probably create a system that includes writing software. If you're good, it may also include talking to users. If you'd forget about your goal and just followed that system, you'd never launch. Even if you arrive at a state where you want to release your software, you need to (consciously) break your system and care about one-off tasks like setting up a company, terms of service and what-not.

TheBiv 13y ago
I don't think that the author disagrees with you. The headline is definetly hyperbole, but he does not discredit the values goals can bring. In his own words "None of this is to say that goals are useless. However, I've found that goals are good for planning your progress and systems are good for actually making progress."

sc90 13y ago

To simply put it:Focus on the process, not the result.

TheBiv 13y ago

A few years ago, I thought that I loved entrepreneurship bc it gave me the ability to be creative and to build whatever a I wanted, whenever I wanted. Then one of my mentors gave me a challenge: 1) In 15 seconds, write down all of the things that you can think about, in the entire world, that is the color white...(I could only muster up about 2 things)...Then, 2) in 15 seconds, write down all of the things that you can think about, in you refrigerator, that are white...(I came up with about 8 things) This was then led to him describing how I should not think about the entrepreneurship life as an unlimiting venture, he argued that I should put limits on myself and develop a process to get to whatever goal I set out to achieve. This article echoes that sentiment of focusing on making the process more efficient and use the goals as a way to plan, but don't focus on the goal, focus on the process. I really liked this article. Thank you for sharing!

randallsquared 13y ago
On the 2 vs 8 things... It's clear what this was meant to convey by your mentor, and I'm glad it worked for you, but those aren't the same kind of thing. Things in your refrigerator which are white only happen to be white, but things in the entire world that are white are white by definition.
- TheBiv 13y ago
  I can honestly admit that I was trying to follow the subtlety of that statement, but yet I don't follow. I guess my question is how are things in my refrigerator only white by happen-stance and not by definition? As everything that I see (regardless of where I see it at) is a product of my own definition, so that should not be of matter. What should be of matter is how quickly I am able to recall the things that are only defined by the scope I place them in (be in everywhere or in my refrigerator)
  - justinpombrio 13y ago
    There's a difference between "prototypical objects" and "specific objects". For instance, apples are red, but that specific apple you have in your hand might be green. Likewise, people have 10 fingers, but my grandmother only has 9. I suspect the parent thought this distinction was hidden in the question? But I don't see any reason you couldn't name a specific object in response to the "everything in the world" question. I also can't think of many objects that are white but not prototypically white. So maybe I've misunderstood too.

tim333 13y ago

Reminds me a bit of Scott Adams thing http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121813075903866 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230462610...

amuresan 13y ago
exactly what I was thinking, it feels like it's one of those things that sticks to you once you understand it.
robotresearcher 13y ago
No kidding. It's the same idea. It bothers me when ideas are presented without even a nod towards their history. I guess all writers are not obliged to do scholarship like journalists and academics, but I wish the publication would point out that we are not reading journalism right now. Even if this guy developed this stuff all by himself, the fact that these are not globally original ideas should be acknowledged. Adams' book cheerfully points out that none of his stuff is really new apart from his personal anecdotes.
- incision 13y ago
  >"It bothers me when ideas are presented without even a nod towards their history. I guess all writers are not obliged to do scholarship like journalists and academics, but I wish the publication would point out that we are not reading journalism right now." I think it might be easier to just recognize that an awfully lot of the web isn't any kind of journalism. For instance, this is a reposted blog entry on a site full of "Top X" lists. The context is the disclaimer. ">Even if this guy developed this stuff all by himself, the fact that these are not globally original ideas should be acknowledged. Adams' book cheerfully points out that none of his stuff is really new apart from his personal anecdotes." Why? One is a 1300 word blog post, the other is a 257 page book with a major publisher. It would make for an arduous life if everyone was required to research and/or acknowledge the first recorded instance of every notion they have before sharing.
  - joshsegall 13y ago

jjoe 13y ago

The article went on to describe in hundreds of words when it really needed one and that's methodology. You have to be methodical in your approach to success. Rinse and repeat the effort every day until things start taking shape.

calinet6 13y ago
It's larger point was that how you think about success matters very much. If you focus on your goals, you'll lose sight of process; but if you focus on correct process, you don't need to have sight of your goals.

Fasebook 13y ago

If you don't focus on your own goals, you're just working for someone else.

mkrecny 13y ago

Aren't 'systems' just smaller recurring goalz?

incompatible 13y ago
They are more like the means used to reach the goal. But if you get rid of the goal, there's no need for the system. So I think his idea "Forget setting goals" fails.

mkrecny 13y ago

Aren't 'systems' just smaller recurring goalz?

supercoder 13y ago

I forgot everything about the article when the blocking newsletter popup appeared.

xux 13y ago

The problem with focusing on the system is that it gives you an excuse to procrastinate. Last set too hard? Well I workout everyday anyways! That bag of chips is irresistible? Well I ate healthy all week! The Goal vs System approach work for two distinct types of people. If you generlaly like laid back, passive work (ex. stable job with a a few nice sideprojects, worksout everyday, has a nice rythmic life), then the System approach is for you. You're already pretty content with your life, and everything you do should work toward maximizing stability and hapiness. The goal approach is different. If you're a frequent procrstinator; if you have brief bursts of productivity followed by long lulls of laziness; then goal is for you. Goal forces you to deal with situations that you'd rather procrastinate, essentially keeping your energy in check. For most entrepreneur, I'd imagine the second approach would work better.

calinet6 13y ago
This doesn't discredit goals, they're still very useful, and your process must align with your goals to help reach them. The way you'd think about procrastination, for example, wouldn't be to simply set goals of productivity, but to find the underlying causes of your procrastination. Often this is a lack of organization, a lack of system to determine what to do next, a physiological issue, a lack of time to meet your basic needs, or a lack of ability. All of these have systemic roots, and systematic solutions. Improve your system and get your tasks out of your head (GTD), fix your metabolism (systematic exercise, diet, etc), change your schedule to make time for your unmet needs, or systematically learn skills that allow you to progress faster. Systems thinking isn't about ignoring goals, but rather about solving the roadblocks, which are usually systemic in nature due to the natural complexity of human nature. Rarely are solutions so simple as "want your goal harder." Look one or two levels deeper, and you get into systems thinking, and you find better solutions that are more effective. You still have to want your goal, but you'll be more successful at actually reaching it.
- xux 13y ago
  What we're discussing here isn't how to maximize happiness. An entrepreneur's job isn't to be happy, it's to get things done. I specifically bring up entrepreneurs because 1.) I assume most people here can connect and 2.) it's one of the professions where short term productivity fix (2-3 years) is more important than bringing a lifetime of "fixes" Yes you can solve your underlying procrastination problem. But assuming it's an underlying psychological issue, can you genuinely undue decades of "damage" in short enough timeframe to run your company? Simply put, there just isnt' time for you to accomplish whatever habit you didn't have before but want to gain by using a system. That's why a system is great for people who are fine with a stable, long-term job. But for an entrepreneur, a "quick fix" solution of using goals will get you further.

hassy 13y ago

If you liked this you should read The Score Will Take Care Of Itself by Bill Walsh who lead San Francisco 49ers to win three Super Bowls. Jack Dorsey recommended this book at the recent Startup School http://www.amazon.com/The-Score-Takes-Care-Itself/dp/1591843472 http://www.amazon.com/The-Score-Takes-Care-Itself/dp/1591843... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEQawgkCMOU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEQawgkCMOU

personlurking 13y ago

I read this last night in some off-hand article I came across but really liked it. I'm translating from Portuguese, but here's what it said. "You know those things that we start doing almost by chance and they end up becoming a goal in life? There's a lot of people that choose their profession like this: do something because you want to and then that thing ends up being so important that it lasts many, many years. It doesn't mean that it's any less important than the projects that already start out with large goals." There's obviously something to be said for marrying the two. I've been captivated by a subject matter for my entire adult life (though I'm only in my 30s) but I never seriously tried to make it into a business. I never made it a matter of 'sink or swim' and I think that's been my problem.

mathattack 13y ago

Systems thinking and process thinking are very big. Built to Last by Collins covers this a lot. They don't skip goals (it's a big part of it) but much of the book is about soft things done right. Leadership is huge. Building systems is huge.

lowbloodsugar 13y ago

>In the last 12 months, I've written over 115,000 words. The typical book is about 50,000 to 60,000 words, so I have basically written two books this year. >Can you imagine if I had made it my goal to write two books this year? Just writing that sentence stresses me out. This is precisely why the goal is important. This guy focused on the system, and instead of writing two books, produced twice as many words of not-books. At college I had some friends who wrote many extremely cool game demos. Not one published a game. I focused on publishing a game. It turns out that writing a game involves a hell of a lot more than writing a demo (a lot of boring shit actually). I expect it is the same with books and online articles. 115,000 words of articles doesn't make a book, and I expect doesn't require the practitioner to develop a system capable of writing books.

daphneokeefe 13y ago

This point is made very well in the book How To Fail At Almost Everything by Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, an excellent read http://www.amazon.com/How-Fail-Almost-Everything-Still/dp/1591846919/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390192643&sr=1-1&keywords=scott+adams+-+how+to+fail+at+almost+everything+and+still+win+big http://www.amazon.com/How-Fail-Almost-Everything-Still/dp/15...

cpayne 13y ago
Am I the only one who thinks the article is just a summary of Scott Adam's book?
- someotheridiot 13y ago
  That was my first thought - "he just ripped off Scott!"
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - visakanv 13y ago
    Scott wrote a Goals vs Systems blogpost before he wrote the book: http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/goals_vs_systems/ http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/goals_vs_systems/ EDIT: oops, this was after the book. The one before the book is as follows: http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/systems/ http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/systems/

hahahafail 13y ago

> For a minute or two, I thought about doing my final set. Then, I reminded myself that I plan to do this for the rest of my life and decided to call it a day. Never.

aymeric 13y ago

As part of setting systems for yourself, set your environment to make fulfilling these systems easier. I call it "friction less systems" for the lack of a better term. 1. Make it easier to exercise everyday by choosing sports that are close to home (or at home). 2. Make it easier to not indulge in junk food by not having junk food at home. 3. Make it easier to drink more water by having the same water bottle as part of the gear you carry with you. 4. Make it easy to not waste time watching TV by not having a TV. 5. Make it easy to not waste time playing video games by not uninstalling video games once you are done indulging in them.

toumhi 13y ago
So Aymeric, you stopped playing video games? ;-)