I get asked a lot why I'd want to go from software engineering into education.

The obvious answer: the increase in salary and quality of life benefits. As we all know, teachers make huge amounts of money, have excellent work / life balance, and only ever deal with happy parents.

Ok, now that we've had a good laugh, the two actual reasons are:

1. As I previously wrote, [education is one of the most important fields to work on today](https://www.imposterlife.com/blog/education-is-a-low-hanging-fruit)
2. I think teachers should be lazier

#2 might sound like a joke at first, but I'm quite serious. I think they need to do less and that's not a bad thing. I think that would greatly IMPROVE the quality of education.

This might need an explanation.

## Lazy programmers

Programmers are notoriously lazy. And no, I'm not talking about the stereotype of us coming into the office at 11am, working a couple hours, playing smash bros, then grabbing a Kombucha and going home. Which is definitely only a stereotype... _looks around nervously._

No, what I mean is the [DRY programming principle](https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/what-is-dry-development). It relates to architecture, but it also functions as an approach to life. We don't want to repeat anything manually when we can have a program do it for us.

If we ever find ourselves doing the same thing repeatedly - open folder, change file names, go back, open new folder, change file names - we think "why am I wasting valuable Smash Bros time on this when I can write a program to do it for me?" And you know what? This approach works great!

The work still gets done, and while it might take longer to do the first time, every following time it's much faster and takes less effort. That's the reasoning behind the famous Bill Gates quote:

> “I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.”

If someone is _lazy_, but responsible, you can count on the job getting done *efficiently*.

Now on to teachers...

## The hardworking teacher

From what I've seen, good teachers work hard. It seems like even when they use the same book and curriculum goals, each teacher tries to personalize their class - coming up with unique exercises, explaining things in a unique way, finding exercises and materials they like or making their own. They do this because they think it adds value to their classes and that it's their role as a teacher to personalize classes. I'm not so sure I agree.

What I believe would make life better for everyone... is for teachers to do less. Or rather, to shift their role.

An easy example: lectures.

Nowadays we can go on Youtube, Khan Academy, Skillshare, Udemy, and 100s of other sites to find videos/courses explaining complex topics. Some of the instructors have put a LOT of effort into their explanations, using diagrams, animations, embedding quizzes. Those teachers were able to put so much effort in because they only have to do it once, perfectly, then they can use that to teach forever. They can SCALE those lectures, so they only have to do it well once.

Compare that to a schoolteacher with 5 classes on the same subject. An experienced teacher might have materials prepared and know how to give a good lecture... but why? If there's already an excellent lecture made, why spend effort on this?

One objection might be "how do we know which lecture is good, there are SO many out there?" That's fair, but I would respond that the effort required to find a good lecture is much less than the effort of giving a talk repetitively. It only has to be done once. Not only that, but it can then be shared with other teachers in the school, the district, even the city. 

The same thing with exercises - if a group of teachers can find an engaging problem set to learn math or english... just use it. Same thing with notecards, if you need your students to memorize things (formulas, vocab), just give them a notecard deck someone has already made for that. Don't do things that are already done.

**Don't repeat yourself.**

But wait, if we "outsource" as much of teachers' work as possible - maybe even down to giving them complete lesson plans - will there be anything left for them to do?

Yes, the most valuable type of work.

## Teachers as a personalized coach

If a teacher's doing something identical to an online video (giving a lecture to the class) or an app (giving problems and answers), that teacher's not adding a lot of value. Students can use the video / app on their own time and get the same knowledge.

Where teachers really add value, and the reason people say machines won't be replacing teachers anytime soon, are:

- **Personalizing the learning experience** - Finding kids that are struggling on a topic / explanation and giving them specific help, maybe explaining it differently, maybe pairing them to work on it with a stronger student (giving that other student the opportunity to mentor)
- **Classroom management** - Letting kids interact with each other, learn how to work as a team, supervising the groups and keeping them engaged and on topic
- **Adding their personality and the human touch to classes** - Helping students have fun while learning, make jokes, talk about topics relevant to the lesson, motivating them

In short, the biggest value of teachers is **being a coach, not a lecturer.** Many student centered approaches to learning are realizing this - you can't force knowledge into kids, the best thing you can do is encourage them to learn. That's why project based learning is rapidly growing in popularity. But I think those approaches can go even further.

## The DRY classroom

What would my perfect classroom look like?

Let's use English as an example. The first step would be to set up goals:
- What do you want the students to know at different stages?
- Is there a state/national exam they need to be ready for, or is the goal general subject mastery over time?

Once that's set-up, I'd want to invest a lot of time creating several possible curriculums to accomplish those goals:

- A small **list of videos or lectures to choose from for explaining concepts** (pronouns, basic grammar structure, etc)
- A **list of digital exercises the students can do to reinforce concepts** (giving them instant feedback, letting them move at their pace, letting the teacher see their progress)
- A **list of class exercises and projects the students can do to apply these concepts** (this should be the bulk of the classroom time, active, project-based learning)

So far, this sounds pretty standard. I'm sure teachers already do this on their own, building up a list of resources they like and finding good exercises. Where my approach differs, is the scale:
- **Structure all the above into lesson plans to be used on a larger scale** - (video from list) + (exercise from list) + (class projects from list)

I think we should get rid of MOST of the "personalized curriculum" teachers create. I don't think every student should be coming up with their own approach, their own explanations, their own exercises. A large group should get together, vote on resources they think are great (that incorporate engaging explanations, personalized learning), then everyone should use those resources. 

Once it's done for a subject, every teacher in that school, school district, or even city can reuse the curriculum. They can stop wasting time trying to personalize "how" something is taught, and focus on the things that no one can replace them for - helping their class get the most out of every lesson.

## What about everything lost?

I imagine the biggest criticisms will be "what about all the great teachers that have a personalized approach their class loves? We'd be destroying everything that makes them great!" To that, my response is "what about all the mediocre teachers?"

Whenever teachers are compared to computers most people start imagining Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society, igniting the passion of his students as they stand on desks shouting "O Captain! My Captain." How many teachers have you had like that? The reason we remember and idolize these teachers is because they're 1/100.

Do you really think the average teacher can make a better lecture than an online course with 1000's of reviews? What about teachers in struggling, underfunded districts? What about teachers in poorer countries that don't have [$10,000+ to spend per student every year](https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66)? Is it really realistic to imagine that ON AVERAGE, teachers can do better than the best online lectures and exercises? 

To me, that seems incredibly unrealistic. I have a hard time imagining an excellent teacher making their own "geometry lecture" as engaging as something Khan Academy's already done, or someone with 20,000 reviews on Udemy. Even a great teacher, teaching multiple classes, just can't compete with someone who's only goal is to produce one piece of excellent content. An average teacher won't come close.

## Summary

To wrap it up, that's what interests me most about education - how we can get teachers to do less. I want to teach to experience firsthand which parts of the class the teacher is indispensable for, and which parts of the class teacher's do unnecessary work. If I come across work that I feel is unnecessary, I'll try replacing it and seeing if it still gets the same (or better results).

The end goal is to do as little as possible, focus on the most valuable parts of teaching (helping individual students, classroom interaction, motivating the class), and still get great results. And if that works, I want to help convince other teachers to do the same.

I want to make teachers lazy.


My goal for education: To make teachers lazier

After laying out my naive vision for education in [this article](https://www.imposterlife.com/admin/education-is-a-low-hanging-fruit), I decided it's time for me to actually start learning about it. 

To resummarize my key point from the article, I believe tech-based education has the scale, cost effectiveness, and pedagogical benefits to greatly improve education, especially when focused on poorer dense cities in lower income countries. But that's a very high level concept.

To actually see if anything is feasible with that idea, I need to explore:
- **General education/learning theory** - How people learn, what specific methods of instruction are good for, whether tech is shown to be effective
- **Types of instruction** - What methods are available for a classroom, from ones focused on teachers to ones focused on computers, remote vs at a location, etc 
- **Current state of education** - What methods are prevalent in modern classrooms? (It's a while since I was in grade school...)
- **Resources available** - What types of tools are available to facilitate a modern, tech focused classroom?
- **The startup landscape** - What companies are already focused on solving this problem? What sorts of solutions and implementations have they tried? Which are working well?
- **Viability of change** - Assuming the idea makes sense in theory - everything shows that it's possible to greatly improve modern classrooms cost-effectively and at scale using tech - how feasible would it actually be to implement in these areas? Are there enough that match the criteria (low current educational bar, population dense, low economically but with the necessary infrastructure in place for tech)? If so, would the governments in these areas be willing to take a risk on a large-scale change of their education? What hurdles may come up here?
- **Actual implementation** - If after all that it still seems worth pursuing, then there's the large question of **how?** What woudl this course look like? How much customization should teachers be allowed to make, vs making a standardized course to follow? What resources and subjects would be added? What tools would be used?

In other words, there's a lot to do going from "I think tech could greatly improve education in the areas that need it most" to "let's make this a reality." Especially for someone without a background in education. 

So today, I started the Wikipedia binge.

## Clarifying some terms

One of the first and most crucial steps for me is to build a vocab to even discuss these ideas. Saying the vague "tech-focused education with a teacher" term each time won't do. 

Starting at the very top, I'm discussing **EdTech (Education Technology).** That's a huge umbrella term and needs to be split into numerous other categories:
- **E-learning theory** - Using tech to study theories of learning
- **Specific tools and media** - Such as tech courses or games for learning
- **LMS (Learning Management Systems)** - Using tech to create entire tools for managing curriculums

In order to decide how to implement tech, first I'd need to understand various **educational philosophies** better. Is it important to facilitate learning with rewards and reinforcement **behavioral theory,** is it about using the right tools to optimize students understanding of the problem (memory tools, linking, visual graphs) **cognitive theory,** or is it best to give small amounts of information and encourage students to teach themselves through interaction, collaboration, and trial and error **constructivist?** Likely some combination of all the above? (Note: my current definitions are probably quite poor, since they come from a paragraph of wikipedia). 

From the brief descriptions, they all sound important, but I like the sound of a constructivist appraoch - letting students play with problems and figure out how to solve them. This also leads into exploring **active classrooms** and various types of **problem based learning** and **project based learning** approaches.

From there, we have to clarify the role of technology further. Will the tech be **synchronous** (every student uses the resources toegether, such as a lecture or zoom) or **asynchronous** (using tech at home to watch lectures or do exercises at their own pace)? Each has their own pros and cons - with synchronous activities they learn to work together, explain things, and listen to each other, with asynchonous activities they have the advantage of moving at their own pace.

Some parts can also be **linear, computer based training** which delegates the instruction fully to computers (courses you can work through and receive feedback on), or **computer supported collaborative learning,** which encourages working together in groups to share knowledge and solve problems. 

In other words, there are many different types of edtech (tools and systems) that each play a different role depending on the learning philosophy and teaching style you want to implement.

The general idea of using technology in a classroom in addition to a teacher is known as **blended learning (sometimes also called hybrid learning).** Even after choosing the materials and tools you wnat to use, there are many ways of implementing a blended classroom. You can use the **flipped classroom model,** basically flipping the traditional lecture in school, homework at home model by having kids learn the lectures and material at home, then come to school to work on problems. There are also any number of different variations, like having kids work on **personalized computer based training** exercises at their own pace for part of the class, and spending part of the class doing group exercises, with the teacher going around and helping everyone.

### Day 1 thoughts
I still have 20 Wikipedia tabs to come back to later, various books added to the reading list, and I started watching through [this guy's videos](https://www.youtube.com/c/NewEdTechClassroom/featured) about educational tools available, but I think my brain's fried from now. 

My initial takeaways are that:
- Unsurprisingly, much of this has been thought of in great detail, and broken down into very specific categories (in theory, tools, and implementation strategies), each that need to be taken into consideration
- There are A LOT of resources and tools out there. A crazy amount of startups that help with any and every step, from making more interactive lectures or gameifying a problem, to running fully remote classrooms
- Classrooms still aren't that tech savvy. I was worried that every modern class had already abandoned old-school lecture-based classes, but that doesn't seem to be the case even in the wealthiest countries, let alone in developing areas. People are slow to add tech and change teaching styles.
- The biggest problem may end up being choice. At first I wasn't sure if there were enough tools available to fully create this system, now I'm worried there are TOO many tools and possible implementations, which would make it overly complicated. If you allow each teacher to use 10 different tools to structure their lecture, and use a different approach / different material for each subject, it's going to be impossible to standardize a high quality education, which is the whole goal. 

    It may be necessary to force simplicity - restrict the number of tools and approaches used, all use the same course instead of letting each teacher create their own, using the same exercises, etc. Cutting out personalization risks making classes worse (if you have a great teacher that's aware of their classes' needs), but adds a lot of variability. My default assumption is that the areas I'd like to focus on aren't going to have award winning teachers for each classroom, so standardization has a much bigger benefit than personalization for lectures.

All the concepts above are still very hazy, and going to be that way for a while, but it's a start. Now at least instead of talking about "tech-focused classrooms with a teacher," I can say I believe in a "blended classroom, using computer-based training for personalized learning part of the time, combined with collaborative tech to implement project-based learning."

Beginning exploring education: part 1

My hypothesis is that education may be the most important problem in the world and, in specific circumstances, one of the easiest to improve. 

Before getting into problems and potential solutions, let's begin with what got me thinking about it.

## Townships
Around 10 years ago I took a trip to Capetown in South Africa and one of the activities we did was a Township tour there. "Townships" there are the equivalent of Favelas / Slums / Ghettos, an ongoing relic of apartheid. The conditions in them are dire - many people crammed together in "houses" which were just stacked aluminum sheets, lack of infrastructure and services, lack of opportunities, and the corresponding high crime rates.

Our tour was organized by someone that grew up in the township and still lived there. He talked about how difficult it is  for the people there to succeed, but he mentioned that opportunities exist even there, the people just can't seize them. Even in a township people need services, they need health care, educators, electricians, plumbers, and people with computer skills. Even in a township, people own small shops and run small businesses. The place functions. They're very poor areas, but also quite large, with sometimes hundreds of thousands of people living in small "cities" with functioning economies, but lacking the skills to help them grow. 

Obviously, the first and most important requirement to be met is health. Without food, shelter, health, and safety, it's impossible to grow and focus on other things. On top of that places need a basic infrastructure, electricity and ideally internet. But once all those criteria are met, the main blocker becomes education. 

Education is the key to so many things in life. Obviously economic opportunity, being better educated you have more job options and paths you can take in life. You make better decisions, you plan better, you know how to live healthier. You gain a new appreciation for life and better understanding of the world and how things work, no longer feeling helpless in large unknown systems and instead having options to take control of and improve things. Education is crucial, and in today's world we have the tools to make it an easily accessible, transformational tool for growth. 

## The low hanging fruit
In the US we always talk about how difficult education is to fix. We throw thousands of dollars at it per student, and still have people struggling with classes, still have people failing to meet standards, still have huge variability in outcome depending on the school, and struggle to make significant changes.

That's because improving education in the US is indeed a difficult problem. 

There are many deeply ingrained systems in place, lots of red tape to make big changes, many concerns with adapting new tech, and the baseline is actually okay. It's not the best in the world, but it's okay. It would take a LOT of money and political campaigning to make a sizable dent there. You'd have to get agreement from parents, teacher's unions, secure funding to try out radically different programs, and deal with potential backlash as these changes are implemented.

That's why I'm not interested in improving education in the US. I'm interested in a very specific case - poor, population-dense areas with basic infrastructure. That's where I think the largest gains can be made at a minimal cost. 

Many of these types of places exist around the world, in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia. They have: 
1. A high population density
2. Basic infrastructure (shelter, plumbing, electricity, internet)
3. A very low existing baseline education

In this scenario, I think it's possible to do a lot of good for very little money by using the right approach.

## The problems
These areas typically have several common problems:
1. **Lack of quality instructors** - The teachers may not have the right credentials, maybe they don't even show up. If they do, there aren't enough teachers to pay attention to all the students.
2. **Lack of quality material** - If they have textbooks, they may not have enough to go around. The textbooks may be old and outdated.
3. **Outdated educational approach** - The teachers may be using the most basic educational approach, the "lecture based approach," going through chapters of a textbook without any explanation of their importance or immediate relevance. This makes it hard to focus in the best conditions, and likely makes it impossible to pay attention in desperate ones. Why learn the pythagorean formula, with no clear path out, when you could be doing menial jobs for money?

With the combination of these problems, it's difficult to imagine kids prioritizing education - coming in daily to lectures by an unmotivated teacher, doing exercises from old textbooks, without any clear goals in mind. 

I would wager that a heavily tech-based approach can rectify most of these.

## Tech to the rescue
What if instead of relying on teachers for instruction, the information mostly came from cheap tablets loaded with high quality lectures and exercises, with teachers to augment them? 

Here are some potential benefits:
1. **Consistent high quality materials** - Instead of relying on old textbooks or a mediocre teacher giving a lecture, now every student would have access to the same, best quality educational instruction in the world. The best lecturers and exercises can be selected from top Universities, Youtube, and educational sites.
2. **Abundance** - Old tablets can be bought for under $50 in the US, and I'm sure many companies would be willing to donate them. Even if that's prohibitively high per student, allowing them to share one or taking turns in small groups still is a more effective use of resources than old textbooks and can be easily updated. 
  
    By relying mostly on video lectures and electronic problems, with feedback, it also frees the valuable resource of the teacher's time. Now, instead of spending their time on general lectures, they can use their time to help students on specific problems.
3. **Pace** - Personalized education allows everyone to move at their own pace, instead of whatever the "median" pace of the group is. Kids that understand things faster can move ahead, and then spend some time mentoring students that are struggling.
4. **Relevancy and engagement** - Instead of sitting and jotting down notes from a board, kids can study things interesting to them, in an engaging fashion. The topics can be clustered around skill sets for specific goals.

    Not to mention just the ability to learn this way has immense value. Once someone learns to use electronic resources to solve problems and teach themselves, that's a hugely valuable life skill. Many of us take this for granted, but just being taught that you have the ability to look things up and learn them opens up many opportunities. 
    
    Electronic focused curriculums would also make it easier to implement new approaches, like project based learning working in groups, which would be  difficult to do if every teacher had to be retrained.

On the surface, switching from lecture-based models with variable quality teachers and textbooks, to ones where students come in, spend part of the day working on personalized instruction from top-notch electronic courses, then help each other implement them working on projects with teacher supervision, would be a large improvement.

Would this solve every problem? Absolutely not. But that's also irrelevant.

## The outcome
The reason for the title is because I like looking for "low hanging fruit." I'm not interested in trying to find the PERFECT solution. Coming up with a system that solves every problem is extremely difficult. You could spend forever trying to tweak and optimize a system for all the edge cases. Instead, I'd rather find a solution that achieves **a large positive change for low cost in a short time.**

Think about it like this - in these specific cases I'm looking at, what are the potential upsides and downsides? 

The current baseline is terrible. There's virtually no education for many kids, and very few learning valuable life skills. What if you could raise that number from 5% to 10%? 20%? Maybe even higher? Isn't that a worthwhile goal? That's a huge number of lives improved.

Not to mention, the benefits of education compound. If you raise the number of educated people in an area, and they're able to get higher paying jobs, those people are in a better position to help their area, to give back and help educate others. The gains multiply quickly with the educated population.

Now, if we switched to largely electronic education, will there be problems with:
- Students that don't feel engaged or don't pay attention
- Students that get left behind and can't keep up?
- Students for whom this isn't the optimal system, that have a hard time learning with it?

Absolutely. And that is very unfortunate. But my question isn't "how many students won't succeed in the new system," it's "how many MORE will succeed with the new system than under the old one?" 

The lower the bar (ie. the worse the quality of the existing education), the more potential upside there is with little to lose. And the upside if the system is implemented well is very large. 

The benefit of a heavily tech-oriented approach is SCALE. You can't scale one good teacher or school, but if an APPROACH is shown to work well, and that approach can be replicated with $50 tablets and some teacher retraining, the potential change this can accomplish is enormous. Coming up with a teacher-based curriculum that works well can create positive change for classrooms that are fortunate enough to get good teachers, creating a tech-focused curriculum that works well can create positive change for an entire country, possibly the world.

## How would this even work?
What would a heavily-tech based approach look like? How would the typical day be structured? What resources would it use? What would the teacher's role be? What are the large potential problems?

I'll save that for a future article. Here I just wanted to state my hypothesis - augmenting education with tech has large potential gains, especially in the areas that need it most. It would be hardest to implement in very wealthy nations with a strongly ingrained existing system. It should be easiest to try in areas with the lowest baseline - lack of resources, lack of teachers, very low current performance - and provide the largest benefit there. At least assuming the local governments there are willing to change things that are broken.

But this is all a very naive take, without having done much research into specific areas, the current educational approach, alternate approaches that have been tried, and what problems they've run into. It's entirely possible that something exactly like this has already been tried and failed for reasons I haven't thought of. Expect more articles to follow as I read more on educational approaches, look at what all the current edtech startups are doing, and refine my view.

Education is the lowest hanging fruit

Often in political discussions with friends and family, after getting into the nuance of subjects and arguments from both sides, things will end inconclusively. The only "conclusion" reached is:

> The issue is messy - both sides have some valid points, both sides have some valid criticisms. Both sides must be equal.

I say that's wrong. There is often a clear "good" and "bad" side, if you really look.

### Shoot the messenger
Words are just words. Anyone can say them and not mean it. Some people have the ability to create a very convincing narrative that sounds valid, but which they don't believe at all. 

To help us evaluate what to believe, we should look at WHO is saying the message. 

For example, let's say we have two potential leaders:
1. **Mr(s). Moneybags** - An extremely wealthy individual. They brag about their wealth and accomplishments while living a lavish lifestyle, without giving much of it away. They take insults personally, instantly looking for ways to retaliate. They favor those that help them. Their causes and beliefs tend to fluctuate, not "within their lifetimes," but depending on who they talk to. They tend to favor causes that benefit them and those close to them.
2. **Mr(s). Humble** - An individual with a "moderate" level of wealth, but who talks mostly about giving it away to good causes. They don't care about extravagances or live a lavish lifestyle. They care deeply about causes, even when those causes aren't in their best interest. They don't focus much on what others think/say about them, just about how to help their goals.

Both of them make convincing arguments and give speeches. Both of them claim the other one is going to do great harm, and that they're the one that can help everyone. Both have studies and experts to back up their claims. 

Which do you believe?

### Some assumptions
Straight off the bat, there are a few things that their actions and lifestyles make clear.

It is significantly MORE LIKELY that:
- Moneybags is going to look after themselves, even at the expense of others, as demonstrated by their lifestyle and past behavior. They have shown having wealth and being successful is very important to them
- Moneybags does not have as strong of an attachment to or belief in their causes, which seem to fluctuate also based on self interest
- Moneybags is more likely to help a few people close to them than care about the greater good, as shown by their behavior favoring those that like them and hurting those that criticize them
- Humble cares more about helping people, as demonstrated by them supporting beliefs sometimes at their own expense
- Humble is more likely to act in a rational manner that furthers their cause, since they don't react strongly to personal attacks or slights to their ego

**Does this mean that Humble is the better leader? No.** I'll discuss that later. There are many reasons Moneybags may still be better. BUT, these assumptions give us a good basis on which to evaluate their speech.

If both leaders talk about "helping people and doing what's best for everyone," I'm SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to believe Humble. Especially if the action proposed *coincidentally* benefit Moneybags in any way, like tax cuts or lax business laws. 

Sure it's possible that it just so happens the things in the best interest of their nation/group are ALSO in their own best interest, but I would trust a principled leader much more than a selfish one in making that call.

So what qualities are important to look at when making these assumptions?

 ### Having a value system

You can't examine a speaker without having a value system, or framework through which to view them.

For example, if I'm trying to evaluate a political leader, what things would I look at? A spiritual guru? A doctor? A philanthropist? A CEO?

Each of these may have a different value system you use. For example, for a CEO, selfishness may be a positive thing. If you make their interests align with the company, maybe that incentivizes them to push hard for the company's success. For other roles, like a political leader, selfishness is a clear negative.

In order to create a value system by which to evaluate people, you have to have an underlying goal in mind. What is your ideal? Do you think freedom at all costs, regardless of consequence is the ideal? Is the goal for that role to maximize profits? Is the goal to maximize well-being?

The objective varies depending on the situation, and based on that objective, you should have a list of traits in mind that help accomplish this.

Okay, that's a bit abstract, so let's look at an example.

### Diving deeper - leadership

For a political leader, my underlying goal is one of semi- utilitarianism: maximizing well-being for the largest number of people. They might prioritize their people and groups closest to them, but they also realize all of us are humans, and everyone matters. If they can make some of their closer people "slightly less comfortable" in return for greatly improving the lives of many people, in my system that's a decision they should make.

Based on that ideal, traits I look for in a good political leader are:
- **Empathy** - An ability to understand and relate to everyone as equal humans
- **Selflessness** - A willingness to go against their own best interest if it helps a large amount of people
- **Humility** - Caring more about achieving good results than getting credit for them. Not having to retaliate against insults 
- **Analytical skills** - The ability to coolly calculate and decide what's actually best for the most people, without getting caught up in an ideology
- **Courage** - The willingness to make tough choices, knowing that many will benefit but some will suffer, and being able to deal with those consequences

Each of these traits has some weight, and there isn't an exact science to deciding which is most important. It's possible that some highly empathetic leaders will make horrible decisions, because they follow their hearts instead of their brains. It's also possible some leaders lack empathy, but compensate for it with great analytical abilities, still making the best choice for everyone. 

BUT, even though I'm not always certain which traits are most important, I am certain what red flags to look for.

- If the actions of a leader show they care deeply about their own material possessions, it's unlikely they'll make decisions that hurt themselves to help others
- If a leader has a huge ego, it's unlikely they'll make tough decisions that hurt their reputation in order to help a greater cause
- If a leader is unwilling to defend their positions against criticism and listen to professionals, I don't believe they can be rational, regardless of their intentions

### Coming full circle - trusting pretty words
These points and more are in my head when I hear political arguments. Every one of them can say nice words. Every one of them can pretend that they're "doing what's best for the people." But in addition to the words, I have my framework to evaluate the sides.

Without giving names, since it's redundant, when I hear:
- One person talking about helping the nation, but that person also brags about having billions in wealth and a lavish lifestyle, doesn't donate much to charities, enriches / praises those close to him, and lashes out against any detractors - I don't trust that person. I have no reason to. They've done nothing to show that they care about anyone's well-being aside from their own. 
- Another person talking about helping the nation, but that person's protested for equal rights causes, been willing to go to jail for them, never bragged about their lifestyle, supports causes that hurt them materially, and talks about giving away wealth - I trust that person. Their actions show that they care. They've demonstrated they want to help.

Again, that doesn't mean I'll always back the latter, "good" person. It's possible to cause immense harm while trying to do good. All the traits matter, and a lack of analytical skills can outweigh a huge heart. 

BUT, when I listen to the two of them, I also know both sides aren't equal. It's not two people with equally valid points that should be weighed equally. It's one person that's proven themselves worthy of our trust, and another that warrants a lot of skepticism. It's one person whose actions show they care, and another whose actions show they care about themselves. 

It's not a 50/50 chance either side is right: there's a 90% chance once side is saying things they think you want to hear, while looking out for themselves, and a 90% chance the other side is saying things they actually believe to be true. I can still agree more with the selfish person's policies, but I'll never full trust the reasons they give for them. 

The sides aren't equal, you just have to look at them more carefully to decide which one deserves your trust.


Both sides are NOT equal

My partner's been trying to convince me I have ADHD. I've been trying to convince her the diagnosis is nonsense.

But, why not take a look anyway?

So I started watching [Youtube videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uI3xymx4do),  [reading articles](http://visakanv.com/1000/0139-adhd/) about people's experiences, and looking at [lists](https://chadd.org/for-adults/diagnosis-of-adhd-in-adults/) of criteria for diagnosis. 

Eventually I had to concede "okay, so *maybe* many of these do apply." So what?

# What does a diagnosis even mean?
Most of my generation has the perception of ADHD meaning a kid that can't sit still or concentrate for a minute and needs medication to function. The symptoms she was pointing out, and the articles were talking about, seemed quite mild and common.

Looking at [Mayo clinic's list for example](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/adult-adhd/symptoms-causes/syc-20350878), we have:
- **Disorganization and problems prioritizing** - Doesn't everyone have problems staying organized and prioritizing things?
- **Problems focusing** - I mean, we all get distracted, right?
- **Poor planning** - C'mon, that has to be everyone
- **Impulsiveness** - Who hasn't made impulsive decisions before?

Okay, sure, there are some behaviors not *everyone* exhibits:
- **Scattered attention on tasks** - The common association - you might start working on one thing, and feel an urge to look up something else, and spiral away
- **Hyperfocus on tasks** - Apparently ADHD isn't just a lack of focus, it's also TOO much focus, sometimes on things you don't want to be focusing on like video games
- **Difficulty starting/focusing on a task** - Especially when there are more interesting alternatives available, it might feel impossible to start a task, even if you want to

... now that I read those out loud, I have to admit, they don't sound great. But still, I'd have a few rebuttals:
1. They're all on a spectrum. Everyone has some trouble with these things
2. It's hard to figure out correlation vs causation for behavioral patterns
3. I'm doing fine

Everyone in modern society, addicted to their cell phones and constant stimulus, exhibits *some* form of distractedness and scattering of attention. Do people have these symptoms because of "ADHD" and a dopamine disorder, or do they have a dopamine disorder because they've been enforcing these behaviors?

True, some people have these symptoms to a level where it significantly impairs their lives - they fail in school, they can't hold jobs, they're unable to drive. I feel for them, and that does sound like a disorder. But what about the people with a "mild" form?

What about the people functioning "normally" in society with these traits? Sure they might forget things sometimes, have additional difficulty in school and work, and struggle to sit still, but they're making it work. Why take their behaviors and personality traits and call it a **disorder?**

To answer that, let's start with why we **don't** want to label it.

# The Pitfalls of labeling
We worry about two major downsides to throwing a label onto this:
1. Stigma
2. Creating victims

## The "stigma" of a disorder
Nobody wants to have a "disorder." In any category where there's a "normal" or "neurotypical," the implication is "atypical" needs to be fixed. You need to get back to baseline.

In some cases, that's absolutely true. If you have depression, that's a disease. If you have a severe case of ADHD preventing you from functioning in society (school, work, relationships), that's a disorder. But, if you have a "mild" case of it, maybe that's something different.

ADHD isn't all negatives (more on that later), so it's not that there's something broken, it's that adaptations need to be made. People don't want to be labeled with a "disorder", but they don't mind categorizing their personality traits (ie. INTP).

## The "victims"
The bigger concern I feel many people have is the worry of creating victims when you liberally label disorders.

The problems associated with ADHD have been around forever and people have found ways of dealing with them. If someone had issues focusing or completing tasks before, they'd be told to "deal with it and figure it out," and often they found some way of doing it. Sure it would be much harder for certain people, and they'd suffer more in the process, but they did it. Isn't training discipline a good thing? 

Once you put a label on it, doesn't that create an excuse? Instead of having to persevere regardless, now they can assign their shortcomings to a disorder. 

When they have trouble completing projects, focusing / starting tasks, paying attention, now they can think "it's okay, I'm just acting like someone with ADHD would." Why would we provide that excuse, instead of encouraging them to find ways to deal with each of these individual issues?

Also, can't that create a tendency to find "new problems?" Maybe you label yourself with ADHD because you relate to three of the criteria, then you start looking at all the other points and thinking "maybe that's a problem for me too?"

# Are the criticisms valid?
In short, not really.

## Counter 1: Dealing with stigma
Regarding the issue of stigma, it really comes down to a branding issue. 

As I mentioned above, there are certain things that are objectively bad - depression, anorexia - but I wouldn't put all forms of ADHD into here. It's a mixed bag. Scattered attention and hyperfocus can be good or bad depending on the environment. 

In cases like this, I would think of it as just a series of letters that describe a group of shared behaviors. Like a personality test. The ADHD personality type struggles in some environments, thrives in others. For some it's a description, not a diagnosis.

The other solution we should have as a society is just being less judgmental on labels. Realizing that most behaviors fall on a spectrum and "atypical" doesn't mean "bad." Sometimes they're just different. 

Apparently the young folk are getting much better at this. I believe there's a word for this, "compassion" or something? 

## Counter 2: Playing the victim card
If this actually is a problem, it shouldn't be. One of the articles said it best:

> It's an explanation, not an excuse

Just because you create a label and tell people they'll have issues with certain things, doesn't mean they're held to a lower standard on those things. If a task is important, it still needs to get done right. 

You don't get to think "I have ADHD, so I won't be able to start a large project because I have trouble focusing." Instead, you get to think "I need to get this project done but will struggle with specific things associated with ADHD, so I need to find the best way of dealing with them."

Sure, there will always be some people that latch onto the label as an excuse, just like there are people that do it with Astrology ("Oh, I can't do that I'm a Gemini") or personality traits ("I can't go because I'm an introvert"), but that should be the exception and actively discouraged.

So given that the criticisms aren't completely valid, what are the benefits?

# Benefits of labeling
## 1. Medication (when needed)
The first benefit is easy - medication when required. Granted, I believe we overmedicate and need to cut down on that. In many cases, the problems could be solved through other techniques requiring willpower and discipline, and medication provides an easy out. 

I think this will continue to be a contentious category until we get better brain scanning technology for every diagnosis, since for now you have to take people's word on how severe their form is and how hard they've tried to implement solutions. This will be more concrete once we have a "X amount of lower dopamine results in X% lower motivation which can be boosted with Xmg of medication."

But, all that said, medication certainly has its place. For people experiencing severe symptoms, it's a life saver. If something is severely negatively impacting your life - causing stress, anxiety, difficulties at work/school and in relationships - and the solution is a simple medication, it seems silly not to take it.

## 2. Optimizing treatment
In the criticisms above, I asked *"why label it a disorder, when solutions already exist for each of these specific problems?"* People can already find material on staying productive, making lists, being organized, focusing better without thinking they have ADHD. Why the label?

To find **better and more relevant** solutions.

All the information to solve your problems is out there, but so is a TON of information that won't help. 

I've read countless material on note taking, organization, and task management, and the majority of them don't work for me. If someone can group my behaviors, call it "ADHD disorder" or "scatterfocusbrain condition" or whatever, and use that to recommend strategies that work better for me, that's awesome! 

I'd rather spend my time trying techniques that work for people with many of my shared behavior traits.

## 3. Adapting the world to you (ADHD benefits)
The two prior benefits relate to "coping" with the condition. How to do things expected of you in normal society given these traits. 

I like [Visakan's take on ADHD](http://visakanv.com/1000/0139-adhd/) (paraphrased):

> Maybe it's not you who has to adjust to the environment, maybe you need to find an environment that's adjusted for you

ADHD isn't all negatives. The combination of spontaneous changes in attention and hyperfocus can be great, *in the right environment.* 

## Scattering attention
Let's say you start reading something, then think of a related subject and look that up, then think of something related to that and look that up, and so on.

For school, this is terrible. School wants you to learn things "linearly," in a sequential manner. That's how you're taught, that's how you're tested, and if you can't do that you fail. 

But for life, that's not so bad.

In life there isn't a linear path to learning all the things. There are infinite topics and many of them relate to each other. By following spontaneous connections, you're building out your web. You may not learn one thing as deeply, but you might end up with many connections between things others don't have, which actually helps with understanding and memory retention.

> Knowledge isn't a line, it's a web

Maybe we should adapt some curriculums to this learning style, instead of the other way around?

For work it's tricky. Some jobs require linear thinking - you need to learn one thing very well and do it in a specific order. Some like entrepreneurship might benefit from the ability to jump around between subjects and form connections. 

If you're trying to force yourself into something ill-suited for you, maybe see if there's an option that naturally works better?

## Hyperfocus
Likewise, the hyperfocus aspect goes great with some jobs. 

It might be a terrible fit for a job with lots of context switching, where you have to meetings all day while also being expected to put together spreadsheets and presentations. In other words, I'd hate to be a project manager.

But for something like programming, it's quite nice. If you have a task you're interested in, you can put on a pair of noise cancelling headphones and disappear into the work. You can go through periods of hyperproductivity. 

True, sometimes it's really hard to start tasks you're not interested in or you get sidetracked, but like I said, it's a mixed bag. It's about using the knowledge of "I do best in these circumstances" to find the best fit for you.

# Label fluidity 
One final thought that wasn't initially intuitive to me: labels are fluid.

I was reading this wondering how I could possibly think I "qualify" as having ADHD when people struggle with much worse symptoms. Some have an inability to drive because the activity isn't interesting enough and their mind wanders. Some can't sit still, feeling like they're being propelled to move "as if by a motor." Here I am, claiming I might qualify, despite not exhibiting many of the more debilitating symptoms.

Thinking deeper though, there's a reason I don't experience the debilitating symptoms. Because I actively fight them, daily.

I try to meditate every morning. I make an effort to cut out unnecessary dopamine boosts, blocking Reddit, the FB newsfeed, and other distractions on my phone and computer. I don't allow myself to play video games. And thanks to all these, I can concentrate.

Without these measures, I know I function very differently. When I allow myself to give in, when my self control lapses, I'm irritable, frustrated, fidgety. My attention wanders more and it's hard to control. The checklists become much more relevant.

Some might say the behaviors are a cause of these symptoms. Clearly doing things that provide sharp spikes in dopamine and deplete it will cause feelings similar to those ascribed to ADHD, which also result from poor dopamine regulation. True, but the same can be said with everything.

There is always a two-way connection between mental states and behaviors. Doing behaviors that enforce a mental state will amplify it. On the flip side, the mental state makes me much more likely to commit those behaviors. They might set a baseline propensity to engage those behaviors and different consequences for doing so. There must be some reason some people can play MMO rpgs and carry on a life, while it destroys others.

The point is: labels aren't clear and binary. Having ADHD doesn't mean permanently being an "ADHD person." You can fight it and change your mental state, so many symptoms won't apply. Or you can give in to behaviors that create that mental state, and the label will start applying to you when it didn't before.

The label describes a group of behaviors and feelings, along with a propensity towards certain behaviors, that can change over time.

# Conclusion
In the end, I guess I'm okay with the label. 

I started off heavily resisting, thinking it's unnecessary and will do more harm than good by excusing behavioral patterns I'm already working on.

I eventually came to see it as useful information. 

I'm still unclear on whether I'd call my behavioral patterns as a disorder. I'm not even sure what that means. We don't have exact measures for most criteria, like "x% lower dopamine and x amount of time being distracted means you need x mg of medication." They're subjective.

The general criteria is "interferes with ability to function normally," which is also relative. That's on a self reported scale. Only an individual knows how much they're suffering, how much stress it's causing, how much difficulty is attributed to their brain functions, and how well solutions work for them. They could end up fooling themselves as easily as a doctor.

But, reflecting more, the exact label and classification don't matter that much to me.

What it tells me is that there's a series of behaviors I exhibit, that other people show too. These behaviors help me sometimes, and severely hold me back in others. I know I may be better than most at working on specific tasks I'm interested in. I also know I'll get sidetracked more easily, especially on larger projects, and have much more difficulty even starting them. I know from experience things like MMO rpgs with short, repetitive high dopamine tasks are a disaster for me - the choice is either not to start it, or not to eat/sleep.

The label tells me there are techniques that people with similar behavioral patterns use to help them. These range from task management (breaking large tasks into small clearly defined chunks and scheduling them), to changing the environment (using educational resources calibrated to their learning style), to medicinal when it's warranted. Having a label as a starting point saves time over looking for personalized solutions without one.

The label doesn't add limitations. The label provides additional information to help people function in their desired, optimal state.

Why should we label ADHD?

I'm not a vegan. I tried it and failed for now, but I know my preference is to be one. And I would bet yours is too.

Discussing diet is a contentious topic, but not in the way we usually think. I've learned through many of these discussions that people rarely argue with me. They're arguing with themselves. They're fighting for the right "not to know."

This is a slight problem, since this discussion in dietary choice destroys the whole notion of "free market capitalism" we think we have. Let's explain.

# Do meat eaters want to eat meat?
After reading Animal Liberation, I found Singer's arguments for not eating meat very compelling. There were tons of arguments to be made - ethical appeals, environmental appeals, health - and I thought using these points I could convince people. Later, I realized my mistake - they didn't need convincing.

At least, they didn’t need to be convinced to listen to my views, they needed to be convinced to listen to themselves.

There are people out there who are fully aware and conscious of their decision to eat meat. They grew up on a farm, they've raised animals, and they've slaughtered animals or hunted. If these people choose to eat meat, they're being consistent with their morals. In modern Western society, these people are the minority.

Then there’s the majority of people. Sheltered people. We haven’t grown up slaughtering animals, and for most of us, it would make us sick. If we saw an animal being killed in a movie, we’d be outraged and file a complaint. If we saw someone kicking a dog in the street, we’d call the cops. If we actually walked by a group of pigs being slaughtered, like I did in Thailand, we’d be traumatized.

And yet… most of us eat meat. Why?

It’s not because we have a preference for it. Or, at least, it's not because of a **conscious, informed** preference.

If each time I wanted a chicken sandwich someone explicitly asked “okay, so you’re fine with me killing this chicken for your snack?,” I’d be eating a lot more tofu. But I don’t have to make that choice. And neither do most people. 

We live in a society that hides all the messiness of how things are made. Things are packaged cleanly and renamed. You can't even legally show the process of how they're made in most places. Just imagine a TV commercial showing a slaughterhouse next to one advertising a burger, there's no way they'd allow it! We like things like this.

We're not making the decision we want to make after thinking about it. We're making the decision we want to make after closing our eyes. We fight for the right to be ignorant.

This is a problem.

# Why do I have to know?
Can’t we just say our “preference” is not to know and leave it at that? Why do we “have to” think about our decisions? It makes us unhappy, so let’s just skip it.

That sounds great! The problem is that decisions have consequences, and by not thinking about them, the consequences don’t go away. So… if we REALLY don’t like those consequences, so much that we don’t even want to think about them, but we’re still making them happen… we’re constantly doing things we think are bad. We're violating our own REAL preference. 

Think about this hypothetical scenario:
- I would pay $100 to save a puppy from being punched
- I have a choice of paying $1 for Imaginary Cola (but they punch a puppy for each one sold) or $2 per cruelty-free Imaginary Cola 
- I buy the $1 can, aware that puppies are being punched, but it’s never talked about and everyone else is doing it

That still makes my decision terrible. I’m doing something I consider a negative cost of -$100 in order to save $1, and the only reason I’m doing this is because it’s made easy for me not to think about it. The cost is still occurring and everyone would be better off if it wasn't. I would be much happier living in a world where puppies didn't get punched, and so would they.

There is one side that wouldn't be happier in this world though...

The producers.

# Externalities
There’s a term for this kind of thing, it’s called a “negative externality.” A negative externality is a cost that’s not factored into the price.

For example, if a company makes a widget for $1, but causes $20 worth of pollution in the process (damaging the nearby lake, burying trash, releasing carbon)... that pollution cost doesn't go away. If the company's not forced to pay it (via taxes or fees), all that means is that someone else has to pay it. 

Whenever someone lobbies to withhold information or reshapes the narrative for a product through advertising, what they're really doing is fighting for free externalities. They want to incur costs without paying for those costs, "pretending" that they don't exist.

Unfortunately, our "free market" capitalism fails when that happens.

Belief in the free market is a belief that when every individual makes the best decisions for themselves, it creates a much better outcome than when someone makes decisions for us. By "best decisions," we're assuming that consumers will make rational, informed decisions that maximize their well being. It’s difficult to make rational, informed decisions when you’re not informed. 

In my previous example, a consumer should be making the choice between:
- $1 can of Imaginary Cola, plus what they feel is the cost of punching a puppy. If they feel the cost of hurting a puppy is $100, they should see the cost of each cheaper can of Cola as $100 + $1
- $2 for a can of cruelty-free Imaginary Cola

Instead, the choice is:
- $1 can of Imaginary Cola (no more information for you!)
- $2 can of Imaginary Cola

That $100 worth of damage is still there. It’s still being paid by those puppies, and it’s something you’d pay to solve, but the company benefits from hiding it, getting to sell a product cheaper and hiding the real cost. 

Consumers think they're also benefitting - they get a cheaper product with "no downside" - but that's false, since the downside is still there. They're just allowing themselves to make the wrong choice.

# Where’s the information?

Some might argue “the information’s out there if you want to find it.” Kind of, but the cost of information is prohibitively high. 
1. Many companies won’t even let you film the conditions of how their product is made. “Protecting trade secrets.”
2. Even if it’s out there somewhere, it has to be looked up and searched for, while the products themselves are openly presented and even advertised. You're forced to see advertisements for the product, but have to consciously go and look up something you know will make you feel bad to properly understand it.
3. In most places the information can't even legally be shown next to the product if someone wanted to give it out.

Think about how crazy that is.
- We can advertise meat everywhere
- We can’t show a video of meat being made in most places (imagine a TV channel airing a commercial of a slaughterhouse during the day)
- So we can kill animals to make meat (completely accepted), advertise that meat everywhere, but we can't show the slaughter anywhere (not acceptable, too traumatic)

We're literally protecting our right to make bad decisions - decisions without information to make the right choice.

# What now?
After all this, let’s return to where we started, specifically the line where I said “I’m not vegan.”

I understand all this, yet I still make the “wrong” decision. As a matter of fact, most people do, and will continue to after reading this. I can’t find the study now, but I read something along the lines of 75% of philosophy professors being morally against eating meat, but 25% actually being vegetarians. That’s a large gap. 

The problem is, we live in a world where it’s easy to not think about our consequences. Most people don’t. And if we do, a lot of times we don’t have the willpower to stick with them, which makes us feel bad without accomplishing anything. 

What are some possible solutions?

## 1. Protect the right to be informed
This is the most important place to start. We can’t keep fighting for the right to close our eyes and do things we think are bad. Closing our eyes does not make bad things go away.

Instead, if we’re comfortable with eating meat, we should be comfortable with seeing commercials for how meat is made (the conditions of the animals and the way they’re killed). If we can’t buy the product after watching it, companies would be left with two choices:
1. Improve the conditions enough that we’re comfortable buying it
2. Create a substitute

Something like the implementation done in this [cheesy video described on a clickbait site](https://www.boredpanda.com/vending-machine-social-experiment-2-euro-t-shirt-fashion-revolution). Let people buy your cheap, sweatshop made shirts, but they have to consciously buy them.

This would create better outcomes for everyone.

## 2. Try to make a “better” choice
It would be great if information was no longer hidden, but we don’t live in that world, and realistically it may never happen. So what’s the realistic option? Try to “do better” in our current constraints.

I believe the “all or nothing” approach often does more harm than good (something I’ll write about later). We don’t all have the willpower to be vegan. We don’t all have the strength to force ourselves to watch content that’s painful to us emotionally, especially when it’s normally hidden away. But we know it exists, so don’t ignore it completely.

Take small steps.

Option 1 above (access to information everywhere) would make societal changes, but you can start making them as an individual by:
1. Buying less
2. Buying substitutes

If you buy less meat, or fewer cheap clothes, or fewer electronics, that sends a signal to the company that they need to revise their product somehow. It’s also not a big sacrifice to eat less, since on average people eat much more meat now than would be recommended by any guideline.

If you buy substitutes, either pasture raised meat, or Impossible meat / Beyond Meat / Morningstar, or eventually lab grown meat, you’re sending an even stronger signal. You’re saying “I have less demand for your product, AND you should make this instead,” driving competition for better products.

This is where I’m currently at. In places where it’s difficult to find a good vegan diet, or while traveling, I’ll eat meat. I know it’s bad, but the cost for not doing so is high to me then. In the US or places with easy access to meat substitutes or higher quality choices, I specifically choose those. It’s not perfect, and I could be doing better, but it’s better than nothing.

# Objections
“This is all well and good for you, coming from a privileged position, but many people don’t have the luxury of buying these fancy, more expensive products. You’d just be making them feel bad for living their lives.”

Few thoughts:
- We overestimate the burden of these changes: For many people even in lower incomes in the West, the extra $3/lb of meat or $5/shirt isn’t the difference between life and death 
- Many of our purchases are non-essential: Our meat consumption per person is significantly higher than any time in the past. It’s not necessary for health. It’s a luxury. Same with upgrading cell phones, or having lots of clothes. We don’t lose much by cutting down.

Even if they can’t actually do anything about it (people are consuming the bare minimum), there is value in making them feel bad about the decision, because that incentivizes action. Nobody wants to feel bad all the time. 

If I have to keep buying cheap meat and watching a video of animals suffering, eventually I'll complain and force the government to create better standards so I don’t feel as bad. With large scale changes, prices will go down for better options. 

# Final Thoughts
The TLDR here is:
- We’re supposed to be making the best decisions in life - maximizing our well-being according to our values
- To do that, we need to be informed about our decisions
- Willful ignorance is bad. We're hiding the cost, but still incurring it. It's not a real benefit to us.
- The only real beneficiaries from ignorance are companies that get away with externalities for free
- The solution is to welcome information about our decisions and change our choices if we're not comfortable with them

This seems like a reasonable ask to me. It’s not asking anyone to follow someone else’s morals. It’s asking people to listen to themselves.

Think about what you’re doing. Think about how it makes you feel. Try, little by little, to be more consistent with what you feel is right. That’s all.


We don't have the right of ignorance

In [part 1](https://www.imposterlife.com/blog/optimal-conversations-intro) I discussed the limitations of regular conversations and a method for fixing them.  Here, let's go over what **optimal conversations** might look like, their limitations, and an FAQ.

# 1. Optimal Examples
How would a conversation look where every topic is tracked and branched out into its most specific points? A lot like [Kialo](https://www.kialo.com/).

Let's take a look at a sample conversation: [Should there be a universal basic income?](https://www.kialo.com/should-there-be-a-universal-basic-income-ubi-1634)

It begins with the topic: "Should there be a UBI." From there, it branches into pros and cons like "Pro: A UBI is an effective tool for preparing for the technological future" or "Con: A UBI would disincentivize people from working." Those points also branch out into pros and cons until reaching some kind of conclusion.

Each of these points get evaluated based on the strength of the argument, and also has comments to clarify or discuss the phrasing. Overall, it's already a huge improvement over typical forums.

What's missing? More Connections.

**This top down model is too clean.** It assumes everything starts at one topic and can be branched out cleanly without repetition: ![clean graph](https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/russiangringo.appspot.com/o/uploads%2FYEzZVNtlDJRImsKCNpE8AeXRD7J2%2F1639804051524.png?alt=media&token=52f6297e-cc1e-4319-8c6a-de01ca5a5dd2)

I suspect conversations would be better suited to a model like this:
![messy conversation](https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/russiangringo.appspot.com/o/uploads%2FYEzZVNtlDJRImsKCNpE8AeXRD7J2%2F1639804627819.png?alt=media&token=a325176c-42ff-4713-abd1-5b3316ad3c4e)

I know it looks like I took the original graph and scribbled over it, but I'll explain. Bear with me here.

In the original conversation, every pro/con was isolated. Every pro/con was linked to the pro/con above, which were in turn all linked to ONE topic. It might go:
- Universal Basic Income
  - Pro: Will help adapt to technology taking over jobs
    - Pro: Government has obligation to provide citizens with basic needs during societal shifts
    - Cons: Too early to predict whether technology will disrupt jobs this time

Here's the thing: Many of these pros/cons should be separated into different topics. 

The bottom pro is asking "What are the responsibilities of a government," which is likely debated in many other pros/cons in this topic, as well as in other topics (capitalism vs communism, libertarianism, taxes, etc). Instead of keeping that as a "pro/con" in this one thread, we should link that point to a separate discussion.

Same with the bottom "con" point, it's asking generally "Will technology continue progressing at the recent pace?", which is likely also asked in other pros/cons in this topic, as well as in conversations about Artificial Intelligence, solutions to Climate Change, economic policies, and more. That should branch into a separate topic.

Instead of  a hierarchy of "topic" and pros/cons going down, it should be "starting topic" branching off into either points specific to that topic, OR into separate discussions.

Concrete examples to follow, someday.

# 2. FAQ
### 1. Who would actually use this?
Anyone that wants to have real conversations in the pursuit of knowledge. Off the top of my head, the easiest applications would be academic, in debates, and possibly talk-show type discussions. 

That said, the limitations are because we don't sit around to specifically discuss political / social issues with friends (at least in the US). They come up in the course of conversation, but it's usually incidental.

If we have friends with different values though, or we just care about understanding an issue and making the right decision, why not specifically set aside time to talk about it? Setting aside time to discuss issues thoroughly makes more sense than having them come up repeatedly over the course of years without making any progress understanding them.

### 2. Wouldn't this take an unreasonable amount of time / effort to do?
It seems unreasonable, because we have an unreasonable expectation that conversations should be easy - completely effortless and fluid. Kind of like we assume we can just "read a book" passively and remember important things from it. 

The problem is that we can't.

If you just read a book, chances are a few weeks later you'll barely remember a few key points. However, if you put in a little effort (25-50% additional time) putting notes into a [spaced repetition memory system](https://publish.obsidian.md/andymatuschak/Andy+Matuschak/Spaced+repetition+memory+system), you can retain the majority of points you read. Which sounds better:
1. Invest 30 hours reading a book, remember 10 lines. Reread eventually for another 30 hours, remember an additional few.
2. Invest 40 hours on reading a book and making notes, remember most of the points from it for later.

Likewise, how many times do we spend HOURS AND HOURS having the same conversation with people repeatedly, and getting nowhere? How many days (or months) have we spent discussing politics with friends and parents without reaching any conclusion whatsoever. 

Wouldn't it make sense to invest a little more time up front, in return for huge gains in understanding and time savings down the line?

### 3. Isn't this overly idealistic? Most people don't care about understanding issues, they just like talking about them.
Sure, that may be true. In that case, it's not for them. If someone is comfortable having deep seated views that control their decisions and form their identity, without ever really thinking about them, then this isn't for them.

I'm an optimist and don't think this applies to everyone. At the very least there's a rationality community interested in finding the most correct views, even if it means updating their beliefs and being wrong often.

I also believe there's a large portion of people trying to find an unbiased view of the world, without many places to look. I'd use [this Trevor Noah interview with a Republican Congressman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJ8nBgEA2Q) as an example. 

Look at the comments for that interview, everyone is raving about what a healthy and positive discussion it was, and asking for more! This isn't the "rabid, polarized community" people assume watch political shows, it's an audience that craves understanding, but wants a civil discussion with someone from the other side that can soundly explain their views and go into the nuance behind them. 

### 4. What's the point of these conversations? Didn't you say earlier that they don't even resolve arguments?
Even without agreeing on the final tenets (cruxes) of each argument, you can:
- solidify your understanding of an issues by being exposed to arguments you might not have seen otherwise
- better understand people you disagree with
- bridge social divides, where instead of seeing other people as "stupid," "illogical," or "evil," we understand why they hold the beliefs they do, and see that their value systems may be very similar to our own
- have more productive solution-based conversations, by seeing the exact points we agree / disagree on

And, as a side benefit, maybe occasionally people will change their positions (or at least end up with a more nuanced position).

What would you rather have:
1. Discussions that leave both sides with a worse view of each other, more firmly entrenched in their original positions, and no new information discovered?
OR
2. Discussions leaving both sides with the understanding that issues are more complex than they seem, and the other side is possibly very relatable on certain points, with specific points of difference?

# 3. What now?

Ideally... start having these conversations and promoting this new method of dialogue. Kialo is doing a good job exposing it to schools and making it broadly available. Other steps might be to:
- Create a prototype of a graph-based version similar to Kialo, connecting topics and evidence better. This will help reveal how all the topics connect to each other
- Start having discussions, either on Youtube, or a podcast. Find some people you disagree with, start with a broad topic, and try out this format. 

The downside is having conversations on controversial topics, even in attempts to stay neutral, tends to make both sides deeply unhappy. And I'd like to stay employable. But we'll see, might be something to try out anyway in the near future. 

If you decide to give it a shot, let me know!

Optimal Conversations cont: example, faq, and critiques

*The method described here is similar to the [Double Crux](https://www.rationality.org/resources/updates/2016/double-crux), which I also highly recommend reading*

Why do most of our conversations go nowhere (nobody learning anything or changing views)? Is it possible to have meaningful conversations with people we strongly disagree with? What would the perfect conversation look like? 

In this post, I'll attempt to answer all of these things. 

Contents:
1. How current conversations suck
2. Why current conversations suck
3. Is a good conversation even possible?
4. The Optimal Conversation

# How current conversations suck

Most conversations are a waste of time. 

Nobody learns anything, nobody changes their mind, and often people  come away from the conversation feeling worse than they did before.  

Here's an example:

>Brian: "Hi, I like your dress. The weather we're having is sunny."  
>Jenny: "Thank you, it's new. It is indeed sunny."

That's a terrible example, since it's small talk, which is all useless and not relevant to this article. Ignore that example and sorry for wasting your time. 

Here's an actually relevant example:

>Jenny: "Hi new person I just met, let's talk about abortion."  
>Brian: "Hi stranger, this sounds like a great idea with no downside."  
>Jenny: "I'm pro-choice, because it's a woman's body and her right to choose."  
>Brian: "I'm pro-life, because you shouldn't kill babies, even though they're loud and smell terrible."  
>Jenny: "Oh my, you want to control my body, so you must be a fascist."  
>Brian: "You must hate the human race, because you would like to genocide all human larvae."  
>Jenny: "I now hate you, good bye."   
>Brian: "I find you equally repulsive, may you rot eternally in a DMV line." 

Sound familiar? I'm sure each of us has had that exact conversation before.

Okay, so I may have taken a few creative liberties, but the main points are:
- Two people discuss a topic they have different opinions on
- They say their views AT each other, finding no common ground and learning nothing
- The conversation ends with animosity and people further entrenched in their views than before

As another example, think of any political conversation, especially with your parents (or kids, if you're a parent) who know nothing of the world.

# Why current conversations suck

What's wrong with this? Maybe we just like feeling like bad. What if our goal is to yell at someone, hurt a personal relationship, then spend the day mad? 

Well, if that's your goal, then excellent. Nothing left to read. /The End

However, what if your goal is to have a meaningful exchange of ideas, where you both understand each other better and possibly learn something? Then the conversation was a complete failure.

>Proposed goal for a conversation: A meaningful exchange of ideas that leads to increased knowledge by both parties, a better understanding of each other's views, and potential changes in perspective.

With that goal in mind, here are some problems that typically occur:
1. **Failure to establish goals:** Maybe your goal is to talk about an issue deeply, and theirs is to vent. 
2. **Failure to establish values:** Even if you both want to have an honest discussion, what if you believe in statistical evidence, and they believe in faith or moral intuition? It's impossible to convince each other.
3. **Failure to establish scope:** "Abortion" or "gun control" or "wealth inequality" are broad topics. The world isn't black or white, if you take an overly broad stance, you'll be wrong. You need to be able to get into the nuance of topics.

Can we get around these problems?

# Is a good conversation possible?

Yes!

...sometimes.

Sorry, but that's the truth. A lot of the time, a good conversation is NOT possible. 

If you diverge on the key points from last section, the conversation is doomed:
- **Different goals for the conversation:** You want to learn, the other person wants to pontificate. 

  *You're not playing the same game.* 
- **Different core values:** You believe in evidence, the other person is arguing from faith. Or you disagree on what constitutes evidence.

  *You're playing the same game, but with different rules*
- **Unwillingness to change:** If someone says their goal is to learn, but they're unwilling to concede and say "I was wrong," then they're not willing to learn[^1]. 

  *You're playing the same game, but they're cheating.*

If there's a large difference in any of those key points, a real conversation is impossible. **That's a hard but necessary truth to swallow: you won't be able to talk to many people about important issues.**

>You won't be able to talk to many people about important issues

You may never be able to change your parents'/kids' minds on politics. You may never be able to change the mind of someone religious/nonreligious. It may be impossible to reveal to nonbelievers that Hawaiian pizza is actually delicious. We just have to live with that.

Realistically, what's more likely to happen is that you'll get roped into these conversations anyway. You'll have them, the same thing will predictably happen each time, and you'll both come away from it angry and further entrenched in your views. 

This is the only possible outcome for a mismatched conversation. 

But sometimes, in rare moments, a real conversation is possible, although it doesn't seem like anyone's having them yet. 

# The Optimal Conversation

Now what you've been waiting for - how to have the perfect conversation, when the right circumstances are met. 

We have several goals here:
1. **Narrow down:** We want every issue narrowed down to the most basic points possible, similar to the Double Crux method linked above
2. **Visualize:** We want a visual diagram of every point we've covered, either on a whiteboard or graph. This stops us from discussing the same points repeatedly, or misinterpreting the other person's views
3. **Terminate:** We want every topic to end in a "terminal node." This will be a point where no further discussion makes sense (more on that later) 

First I'll go through the steps, then an example so you can see for yourself.

## Step 0 (preliminary): Have Faith
Assume people are misguided, rather than evil, and you need to understand each other better. If you both think the other person is purposely trying to do harm, the conversation is just an argument.

## Step 1 (The Objective): Establish Goals
Clarify that you both want to understand the issue. "I believe my views are correct and based on facts, but I'm willing to concede if I'm proven wrong."

## Step 2 (The Rules): Establish Values
What kind of evidence are you willing to accept? Do you both accept that scientific evidence based on statistics is enough to disprove a view? Do you trust similar sources to provide evidence?

If not, you can still have a conversation to reveal people's views, but it's unlikely that any of the views will change. Once it gets to a point that requires evidence, you need to be using the same evidence systems (statistical / philosophical / religious).

## Step 3 (The Game): Start Talking
Start talking about a topic. As you go:
### 1. Keep track 
You can either use diagrams, or a whiteboard, or just write them down. But it is crucial to make sure the points you discuss are written, so that your positions are clear, can't be twisted, and you don't keep going over the same points
### 2: Narrow down
For each issue, start at the top, and keep trying to find which arguments support that view.

For example: Let's say we start with "we need more gun regulation." 
- Why? "Because it would lead to fewer deaths." 
- Why? "Because if fewer people had access to guns, we'd be safer."
- Why? ...
OR
- Why not? "Because it's a fundamental right."
- Why? "Because it's in the constitution."
- Why is that important? "Because we need an agreed upon set of laws for society to function and to protect citizens from government."
- Why? ...
### 3: Find the terminal nodes
Recognize when you've hit a **terminal node.** Terminal nodes are similar to the "cruxes" in the double crux model, an irreducible point that can be proven / disproven with evidence, that your arguments rest on. They're the atoms of the argument. 

There could be different types of terminal nodes:  
1. **Settled:** You both agree 
2. **Unsettled, impossible to settle:** You disagree, and the disagreement rests in value systems. Maybe they believe "God says it's wrong" while you believe "philosophy shows it's ethical," or that there are statistics to back your view. This node won't be solved.
3. **Unsettled, requires evidence:** You've reached a node where either of you are willing to change your view, but you need to see convincing evidence to do so. This happens if you're using similar types of evidence (statistics)

### 4: Ignore Terminal Nodes
Here's a counter-intuitive addition to my version of these conversations: When you find a terminal node type 3 (requires evidence to prove / disprove)... ignore them.

Why? Aren't these the most important nodes? Isn't the whole point of the conversation to find these and try to reach a definitive conclusion?

So much time in a conversation gets spent trying to prove / disprove very specific points, which I would say is a waste. For gun control, let's say we reduce one of the arguments to "studies show that stricter laws reduces gun violence." You might have 10 studies to support your claim. I might have 10 studies to back mine. They're likely all from different sources, with different methodologies and different reviewers. 

To try to reach a definitive conclusion, we'd have to switch from a broad conversation revealing the minutiae of each other's views, to a highly specific one discussing the validity of certain studies. We might not even be able to make any progress there, unless we're domain experts in the field and can carefully analyze the studies. 

It feels unsatisfying to reach a point where you both disagree based on the evidence and just leave it, but that's what I would do. Save it for later. Do some research on that specific point and get back to the other person. The conversation has more value broadly revealing each other's views, than it does being hyper-focused trying to prove/disprove a node that may only be responsible for 5% of a stance.

### 5. Continue exploring and linking
Keep branching topics out, tracking them, and realizing when you've branched off into separate discussions. For example, you might have several conversations (gun control, abortion, drug legality) where you ask "what rights should the government have over our bodies?" You might have several conversations (socialism vs capitalism, the trolley dilemma, taxation) where you ask "is it fair to harm a few to create a benefit for many (utilitarianism)?"

Branch these off. Recognize when one of your pieces of evidence can be a topic on its own.

Creating branches helps:
- **Avoid repetition:** We won't be discussing the same point in 10 different topics
- **Clarify topics:** We'll know when we've wandered into a separate, complicated discussion. If we start at "how high should taxes be" and now we're asking "is utilitarianism a valid philosophy," we're in for a large detour
- **Create a knowledge web:** This will help reveal the fundamental points underlying many seemingly separate views. 

# Examples, Benefits, and FAQ
Are all discussed in [part 2](https://www.imposterlife.com/blog/optimal-conversations-pt-2), because this article's gotten way too long.

[^1]: It's unfortunate that many people believe never saying "I was wrong" is a marker of strength, when in reality it's a huge weakness. The only way to never be wrong is to never learn new things. The smartest people are the ones willing to be wrong often and adjust their views when that happens.


How to have an Optimal Conversation

Why use an easy prebuilt solution when you can build your very own blog from scratch, using 20 different pieces of technology with their own learning curves? 

Some might say the reason for a prebuilt solution is "efficiency." Or "practicality." Or "because it's the non-idiotic decision." 

To all these critics, I say "Haha! You are completely and totally... right. But I'm going to build one anyway." And with that, I deleted the perfectly functioning Ghost blog I had running.

I thought it would be a quick project for a couple days, which would make me a terrible product manager. Replacing a CMS involves much more than adding a series of <MY_POST>.html files. 

## The Justification
There are loads of existing solutions for building a blog or newsletter: Wordpress, Substack, Ghost, Medium. I was going to do an exhaustive comparison of each, but then decided other people have already done this better. You should Google their articles*.

My short summary:
- **Wordpress:** Has easy integration with most hosts (Bluehost, Siteground), a robust ecosystem of themes, plugins, and widgets, and a large support community. I just don't like PHP. Also, it's a pain choosing and customizing themes, since each one has different options and ways of doing things. I also want more fine-tuned control for the site than free plugins offer.
- **Medium:** Great for gaining an audience for blog posts. Not the place to make a custom webpage, but I'll likely start posting there in addition to the blog. Once I start writing things worth sharing, that is.
- **Substack:** I hear it's great for simple newsletters, especially monetizing them, but I'm not making this site solely for the newsletter.
- **Ghost:** Described as a customizable Substack, this is what the site was using before. To be honest, it was perfectly fine. I could likely have spent the week or two it took me to rebuild this site to learn Handlebars (Ghost's Javascript framework) and better understand how Ghost works instead. 

  There were some things I didn't love, like Ghost only works with specific services (Mailgun for mailing as an example), I had difficulty customizing the appearance of parts of the page, and I didn't quite understand all the internals (like how to download and transfer all the blog posts and images). Overall though, Ghost felt like a good option for a blog.

I could probably have made one of the options above work, especially if I use this site as just a blog. But... I'm not sure that'll be the case. Really, the decision comes down to a few factors:
1. **Flexibility:** I'm starting as a blog, but maybe in the future I'll want to add pages for different projects I work on. Maybe I'll want to drastically change the article format to handle links like [gwern](https://www.gwern.net/index) or [Andy Matuschak](https://notes.andymatuschak.org/About_these_notes) do, turning them more into a "knowledge web." I can't do these in a traditional blog.
2.  **Flexibility:** Building from scratch is the ultimate flexibility. You have complete handling of load time (choosing between server-side, client-side, and static generation, as well as customizing loading of elements on the page), SEO, and the post format. 
3. **Learning Opportunity:** I'd been hearing about lots of different tech (NextJS, Firebase, Tailwind) and worked through a few tutorials, but the best way to learn them is to get your hands dirty.
4. **Stubbornness:** I'm a developer, I should build my own page.

## The Complexity
Having somewhat justified the decision, I made a list of things I needed to add. It turned out to be a lot.
- Site architecture: What do I use to build it? Where do I host it? How do I render it?
- Posts: What fields do the posts require? How will they be stored and organized? How will I edit / create new posts?
- Storage: What do I use for storing images and other files?
- Comments: This was a direct request from my one subscriber, so it had to be done. Do I build my own solution? Self hosted existing solution? Out of the box third party integration? Should I load them with the page for SEO, or on demand for faster loading?
- Mail list: How do you enable sign-up for a mailing list and automatically notify subscribers of new emails?
- SEO: What do those letters actually mean? How do you pronounce it?** What metatags are best to add?
- Styling: See [this post](https://www.imposterlife.com/blog/css-decision-fatigue) to hear about my enjoyment figuring that out.

And more things as I went along. It turns out CMS(es)*** do a lot. This might have been a poor decision.

## Decisions
What I ended up going with was:
- NextJS for the site, hosted with Vercel. I like the flexibility NextJS offers. Most of the blog is static generated for fast load times (rebuilt any time a new post is added or build changed), while the admin section is mostly client-side and can load up the 800mb of Firebase Auth packages. 
- Firebase for pretty much all the back-end functionality: Firestore for DB, Firebase storage for storage, Firebase Auth for authentication (admin sign in to edit)
- Tailwind for CSS / Styling. I may regret this one. It was talked up as the "easiest, least opinionated framework to use, you can just add css shortcuts into the className and create your own components." It turns out I don't want a bunch of classnames in my component, I prefer `<PrimaryButton />` to `<button className="rounded p-4 m-4 text-white background-blue-400 :hover..." />`. Yes, I know I can make custom types and themes in Tailwind, but I was under the impression "css directly in the component" was touted as a benefit, to which I would say, "yes if you want to read an essay every time to figure out what something does." The shorthand syntax is nice, maybe it'll grow on me.
- Comments: I used Disqus. It's easy add, integrates with multiple forms of sign-in, and does the hard work for you. No point in reinventing the wheel here. I decided to make them load on demand for faster initial page load time, skipping the possible comment SEO benefit. Might change that in the future.
- Mailing list: I used Mailchimp, which wasn't perfect, but gets the job done. I had to create an RSS feed for the blog in order to use their "RSS Feed Campaign" for new blog posts.
- SEO: I copied and pasted some metatags people claim are important. Who knows.

## Conclusion and Thoughts
I'd consider this a 5/10 on the efficient use of time scale. In the end, I rebuilt everything that was already working perfectly fine, and ended up with a worse result. My styling still isn't as good as it was with Ghost. The social media integrations are lacking. I'm sure it's buggier. And there's probably a whole list of things I need to add or rewrite eventually. 

BUT, I did learn a lot, which was the main goal. I got to take different technologies I'd mostly used in tutorials and build something with them, making mistakes to learn from along the way. And it's an investment, it doesn't make much sense for a blog with 2 readers****, but if it ever grows it'll pay off in terms of ease for upgrading, extensibility, optimizing load times and saving hosting costs. 

At least that's what I'll tell myself. Anyway, I have a blog now, and can work on something actually new and useful now that it's done. And also now that I've deleted the Diablo Immortal Alpha, which to be honest, is the main reason this update took a month instead of 5 days.

*In hindsight, encouraging people to leave your blog probably isn't great for metrics   
**I believe it's "say-oh"   
***No idea how to pluralize this  
****Yes, I'm counting myself  

Adventures in rebuilding the blog from scratch for no reason

Like most developers, my portfolio consists of 800 projects, roughly one of them that's finished.

![](https://imposterlife.com/content/images/2021/10/image.png)

Stated eloquently by "asshole full of elbows" source: https://imgur.com/gallery/p8mfkPu

It's an ongoing programming meme (see: most posts on r/programmerhumor, filtering out the ones hating Javascript), but even that's a simplification. It's an ongoing life theme. Most of us are just terrible at following all the way through. We like starting things, but eventually hit a plateau and our interest drops off.

This may be a problem for me during my extended period of 100% free time. Ideally, I'd like to finish something.

So my question is: what's stopping me from finishing my projects? Is it talking about my them too much, or not enough? Should I tell everyone when I start something new, or tell no one until it's done?

Tell everyone - group accountability
====================================

The argument for telling people about things you work on is accountability.

If you announce you're starting a goal - building a website, losing weight, quitting smoking - and you tell everyone about it, you'll feel "shame" if you don't follow through, in addition to having a community of people to hold you accountable and support you through the struggles. With some caveats.

For the accountability to work, there has to be a cost. If you have a reputation on following through or take reputation seriously, this will motivate you. If you have a habit of constantly announcing projects and not following through, people will expect that from you, and it'll be meaningless. It might actually have the opposite effect, since your reputation is not following through, now you're comfortable adding yet another project to the list.

Tell nobody - the 'feels bad' approach
======================================

A large downside with the "announcing projects" approach is that it feels good to tell people about it.

We do things for a 'payoff,' and often we can get a large payoff without doing the work. This is the self-help industry in a nutshell - if you read books about self improvement, it feels good to be reading them, so why actually put in the work after? Same with announcing projects - it feels great to announce it and think about working on it, why actually do all that work?

By keeping things quiet until you have something to show, you're forced to do the work to get that payoff. There is no minor payoff - you either do the work and have a large accomplishment to show, or don't finish, and have nothing for the effort.

The problems with this approach:

1.  It's hard to do. This is the main one for me, when I get excited about an idea, I like to talk about it. It's just hard to be secretive about things.
2.  Self accountability. If you're not telling people what you're working on, no one knows how productive you're being. If you get lazy, you're the only one that knows it.
3.  Lack of community support. It's nice to have people help motivate you during the slumps / plateaus of working on things, which is hard to gain when they don't know what you're doing.

Which is best?
==============

Both have their advocates, but as with most advice, I think the best path here is just "try to find what works for you."

For me, I know I've been telling people about projects most of my life, and that's led to a huge pile of unfinished projects that I felt good talking about. The logical progression would be to try to set up goals and keep them quiet until after achieving meaningful progress on them. Or, maybe fuse the approaches, and have a small group of "accountability buddies" to follow up with at set intervals.

To rephrase this: my goal is to stop talking about my goals until after achieving them. Have I already failed at it with this post?