Ironically, the root of most "bogging" is thinking too much instead of just doing things that need doing or that ripely present themselves.
The author has reflected so much that they've created a bespoke system of abstract beliefs with catchy names and various example cases that they can summarize into a 5000 word essay and probably even extend into a book.
For a writer, that's a sneaky but effective way to do their thing. (Or alternately: for a compulsive contemplator, writing is a sneaky way to justify the contemplating.)
But for most people, reading something like this and reflecting on whether you also "gutterball" and also have "toothbrushing problems" is effectively feeding the beast.
Many many of us in this community carry an urge to intellectualize and systematize and engineer things, but if you're interested in "de-bogging" that urge itself might be the thing to look most critically at.
Before reading the article, I was nodding along reading your comment. Having read the article... it's actually pretty good! "Just doing things" might be the right general approach but I feel that sometimes it's easy to get stuck contemplating. I think the post offers some interesting heuristics for getting unstuck.
Edit: Reading even further, it's actually one of the best posts of this kind I've read in years. The author is spot in the behavioral patterns he's noticed. Damn.
"Often, when I’m stuck, it’s because I've made up a game for myself and decided that I’m losing at it. I haven’t achieved enough. I am not working hard enough and I am also, somehow, not having enough fun.
These games have elaborate rules, like “I have to be as successful as my most successful friend, but everything I've done so far doesn't count,” and I’m supposed to feel very bad if I break them. It’s like playing the absolute dumbest version of the floor is lava."
My biggest problem is contemplating all of the steps and future work that will go into a project, then getting disheartened as I begin. Eventually I delude myself into believing it’s not worth the effort as it might fail anyway.
It’s probably a self-confidence thing, but so are most of the funny names in the article.
I should probably just focus on step one once I decide the end result is valuable.
The article all throughout points to the same root cause you point to. It clearly presents a mirror where we can see reflected all the stories we often fabricate to trap ourselves. Perhaps the author created a system. But I saw it rather as a device to better bring to awareness common but elusive mental patterns that keep us stuck. Although I'd agree with you that intellectualizing is often part of the problem, how do you then treat a disease, if the only medium available to administer the medicine is also the cause of the disease? How do you tell people that their mind is the reason they suffer without telling them?
Even your own comment, as valuable as it is for pointing it out, feeds exactly the same beast that it accuses the article of feeding. That's the real irony.
> they've created a bespoke system of abstract beliefs
swatcoder, can you please tell me how you particularly manage to learn from your mistakes?
Some people create personal theories of how the world works, and then put their theories into action: A successful example is Charlie Munger and heres his talk explaining some of his excellent theories: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv7sLrON7QY
Some people overthink things and label things. That can be unhealthy, and Adam touches on that with his "Stroking the problem" section. But the opposite can be unhealthy too: not thinking at all and repeating over and over making the same mistakes.
> catchy names
Useful when communicating with others if it is an uncommon concept. I like to search for the perfect word or perfect catchphrase when thinking about a problem or solution because it helps my thinking.
> various example cases
How do you do it? Don't you look at specific issues you find in your own life? Examples yes? And then generalise from that?
I just don't understand what you're complaining about. The closest I can think is that you're anti-intellectual or you're a "Just do it" prosyletiser - the implication being that thinking is unnecessary and the problem.
Academic over-thinking is its own problem: is that your issue?
Like most things: we need to find the right balance. Thinking too little is bad in a different way from thinking too much.
> intellectualize and systematize and engineer things
I'm just gobsmacked at your choice of words: is systemizing and engineering bad? I define engineering as making good compromises. Maybe you could find some catchier phrases from what you are trying to say ;-). "intellectualize": is thinking good or bad?
I suspect I'm falling into the trap you mention - perhaps we both need to learn to write as well as Mastroianna!!
Navigating the world comfortably involves a balance of contemplation and action.
As I tried to allude in my comment, most people here, myself included, are already heavily biased towards the former. We train ourselves to think deliberately and rationally, breaking down challenges into components, using and inventing abstract symbols and operations to get from where we are to where we need to be. It's our profession in many cases, and often we were called to that profession because we've got some natural inclination to approach the world that way.
And it's valuable! I don't know that I could work on hard problems or take sound actions on some of the biggest and most impactful matters in my life without that. I value that I'm good at it, and practiced in it, and (like the author) think there's value in sharing the fruit of that work with others.
I did exactly that in my original comment and I'm doing it again here.
What I'm expressing is not a general critique against intellectualizing. It's cautionary advice that -- for many of the people here -- they (specifically) may experience more benefit resisting the urge to intellectualize rather than indulging in it.
It's not anti-intellectual, nor is it especially novel.
You can find comparable encouragement in both "Eastern" and "Western" traditions and from countless modern synthesizers of these traditions (Alan Watts, Werner Erhard, etc), who encourage brainy "bogged" intellectuals to just "bonk" themselves and stop expecting more thought and analysis to be the road away from their problems.
In many cases, it's the intellectualizing itself that invents/perpetuates problems that simply cease to be if one can practice simply acting.
Some people need the opposite advice, but few of them are going to be reading these comments in the first place and generally have different complaints than being stuck in s "bog".
My father is very academic and he tends to start projects but not finish them. I also recognise the same fault in myself. But I've fought it hard and won a few times with some long-term successes (using a variety of personal strategies to avoid my unproductive tendencies).
We have many concepts related to what you are saying: analysis-paralysis, productivity porn, ivory tower, etcetera, etcetera.
I find the fields of psychology and philosophy are mostly tar-fields of unactionable thinking. Unfortunately I also find them interesting!
Finding the gems in the tar is hard, but Adam seems to find a few of them.
I agree that most people are not biased towards action, and fixing that is the first step. However, the article is clearly aimed at people who have made that change and now are faced with the more subtle question of "how do I think about the problem such that the action I choose is likely to be appropriate."
The blog author does well to id/categorize the issues. People need a way to quantize+act on the issues - various systems exist for that. Key is to feel progress (on a particular direction/plan or at least in hindsight).
Ideas that track such progress:
--
1-3 high quality decisions per week (credits to Bezos, tho he does 1-3 per day).
--
1-2 important/not-urgent tasks per week.
1-2 small, not-important/(semi-)urgent tasks per day - these are also a form of "toothbrushing" that each adult has to do.
"When we constantly pull everything apart trying to see how it works, we may end up with only an understanding of how to destroy something. We can have piles of spokes, rims and axles, but the beauty only happens when we see the wheel rolling." - Nick Sand
It’s hypnotic writing in the style of Yudkowsky, Ron Hubbard or supplement scam videos on YouTube. On one hand it is pretending to be thinking rationally about things but with a heavy dose of fantasy mixed in that can put readers in a muddled mental state. They drone on and on and on so that you either give up reading it or go into a trance.
Supplement videos never get to the (or any) point though - you can watch it for hours for amusement or just look up the company to see what they are selling. It's like that infinite GIF of a truck heading towards the security pillar, shown from all camera angles.
The author has reflected so much that they've created a bespoke system of abstract beliefs with catchy names and various example cases that they can summarize into a 5000 word essay and probably even extend into a book.
For a writer, that's a sneaky but effective way to do their thing. (Or alternately: for a compulsive contemplator, writing is a sneaky way to justify the contemplating.)
But for most people, reading something like this and reflecting on whether you also "gutterball" and also have "toothbrushing problems" is effectively feeding the beast.
Many many of us in this community carry an urge to intellectualize and systematize and engineer things, but if you're interested in "de-bogging" that urge itself might be the thing to look most critically at.