Just like “design principles” are afterthought of great designers, rules are afterthought of achievers. Which means that rules are not framings of how we do things (e.g. live our lives), but those of how we *think* we do them. People often mistake the latter for the former. Thinking about thinking ≠ thinking about doing.
I like this. It's like a kind of survivorship bias, in that we get rules from people that the rules worked out for.
I think that's sort of what I'm thinking for this book. To explore when these rules clearly don't work (The golden rule for example is kind of narcissitic, I can treat you how I want to be treated but that might not be how you want to be treated. The platinum rule (Hi Nicole) seems better but it probably has some flaws too.
You're laddering up to Kant's Categorical Imperative!
But so much yes to your point, Noah. "Design principles" are usually post hoc justifications for a mess of intuitive choices that worked out, not rules you can follow to reproduce good results. Same as with a lot of stuff: we don't have conscious access to our decision-making brain bits, and thank goodness we don't because we really wouldn't like it.
I find it interesting to contrast rules against parables, fairy tales and teaching stories – these are all much more ambiguous, but that means they're more flexible and resilient across contexts.
I love parables and allegories! In theory they dig in deeper since we're storytelling creatures, but to your point they are often necessarily ambiguous and can be warped to our perceptions. It's all so fragile it seems.
What’s really interesting is that clear rules *feel* less ambiguous and up for interpretation but are actually much easier to co-opt to fit whatever you want. Like with corporate values statements, where whatever you make them they are immediately used to reframe what folks already wanted to do. Project X is unchanged, but the framing of Project X moves from “we’re doing this because customer obsessed” to “we’re doing this because team players” or “we’re doing this because do the right thing” or “we’re doing this because fail fast”
Higher ambiguity parables and stories feel less clear, but this also makes them less easy to insta-reinterpret for any ends.
To the point you make about the role of power, I suspect the clear rules support power games because they separate those who know how to manipulate language from those who are naive enough to believe corporate culture babble.
"afterthought of great designers..." sure but there must be some governing principles subconscious if not documented that help them get started and gradually grow into a certain position where they talk about design principles. So, these are not an afterthought in black-and-white.
Sometimes (often) I also give myself a temporary rule, just to practice discipline, perform an experiment, or both. I think folks often think of these as resolutions, but they don't have to be tied to the calendar year.
For example, in 2023 I added two temporary rules: no new clothes, no new books. The underlying purpose was to disassociate happiness with quick-hit retail therapy, and become more mindful of my consumerism. It has helped! In 2025 my themes will be around intentional living, and I think the rules I'll establish for myself will be something around social media / phone use (again, trying to control those enticing quick-hit cheap and brief dopamine triggers) and I've also pondered going sober for the year - not because I think I have an alcohol problem, but because it's a default social knee-jerk "yes" that I think doesn't actually add much to my life but empty calories, headaches, and paying $22.50 for the privilege of said headache. Plus, I just want to see how I feel without it for a year. I might feel pretty great! I might feel no different! But I know I will feel I did a successful long-term experiment for myself either way! :-D
These are rules, but they are not permanent. (They are just ways I strive to be less fun at parties... hahaha.)
I believe that rules are made to be broken, or at least changed, as the situation in which they exist changes. To that end, I've come up with four rules about rules (meta-rules) that I generally apply:
1. Learn the rules and why they exist (context, beneficiaries, etc)
2. Understand the consequences of not following a rule, and of following it
3. Always follow the rules, except when you shouldn't
4. When a rule needs to be changed (including getting rid of it), change it
With some slight modifications I also apply these when I'm the rule maker. For example, (3) changes to "Always enforce the rule, except when you shouldn't". Rule (4) generally follows from rule (3), because if a rule is being broken or not enforced, that is a good indication that the rule needs to be changed.
As you might have guessed, this is a topic i've given some thought to. Excited to see where this all takes you in your book project.
This is good and in line with my thinking. #3 could be an entire chapter (Rule exception handling). Arguably it's the hardest and most important thing about rules.
But then I wonder: how often in daily life am I just reacting to things, and then later on rationalize it to a rule?
It's also true a list like this is a lot of work! Bertrand Rusell joked about how hard it is to get people to think. We deeply resist it.
So part of the question I'm asking is about how most people either think about rules, or the internal/subconscious process that leads to decisions that might approxiate a rule.
That's a good rule. But when would you make exceptions? If you were feeling overwhelmed or stressed about life in general, would you decide to apply a different rule?
Like Nicole I was thinking of the "Hell Yes or No" rule - I find it a very useful guideline for myself, but it's also my best example of the "opposite rule that is also good" scenario: sometimes "being a Yes man" is the best thing to do rather than make quick judgements and conserve energy. Depends on the stage of life/project/energy cycle.
Just like “design principles” are afterthought of great designers, rules are afterthought of achievers. Which means that rules are not framings of how we do things (e.g. live our lives), but those of how we *think* we do them. People often mistake the latter for the former. Thinking about thinking ≠ thinking about doing.
I like this. It's like a kind of survivorship bias, in that we get rules from people that the rules worked out for.
I think that's sort of what I'm thinking for this book. To explore when these rules clearly don't work (The golden rule for example is kind of narcissitic, I can treat you how I want to be treated but that might not be how you want to be treated. The platinum rule (Hi Nicole) seems better but it probably has some flaws too.
You're laddering up to Kant's Categorical Imperative!
But so much yes to your point, Noah. "Design principles" are usually post hoc justifications for a mess of intuitive choices that worked out, not rules you can follow to reproduce good results. Same as with a lot of stuff: we don't have conscious access to our decision-making brain bits, and thank goodness we don't because we really wouldn't like it.
I find it interesting to contrast rules against parables, fairy tales and teaching stories – these are all much more ambiguous, but that means they're more flexible and resilient across contexts.
I love parables and allegories! In theory they dig in deeper since we're storytelling creatures, but to your point they are often necessarily ambiguous and can be warped to our perceptions. It's all so fragile it seems.
Right?!
What’s really interesting is that clear rules *feel* less ambiguous and up for interpretation but are actually much easier to co-opt to fit whatever you want. Like with corporate values statements, where whatever you make them they are immediately used to reframe what folks already wanted to do. Project X is unchanged, but the framing of Project X moves from “we’re doing this because customer obsessed” to “we’re doing this because team players” or “we’re doing this because do the right thing” or “we’re doing this because fail fast”
Higher ambiguity parables and stories feel less clear, but this also makes them less easy to insta-reinterpret for any ends.
To the point you make about the role of power, I suspect the clear rules support power games because they separate those who know how to manipulate language from those who are naive enough to believe corporate culture babble.
"afterthought of great designers..." sure but there must be some governing principles subconscious if not documented that help them get started and gradually grow into a certain position where they talk about design principles. So, these are not an afterthought in black-and-white.
Yay! I am a fan of this book idea. Excited to follow your progress and be involved.
Some “rules” I like:
1. Be kind
2. Focus on what you can control
3. Unless it is a hell yes, say no
4. Platinum rule: treat others how they want to be treated
5. Everything in moderation including moderation
Sometimes (often) I also give myself a temporary rule, just to practice discipline, perform an experiment, or both. I think folks often think of these as resolutions, but they don't have to be tied to the calendar year.
For example, in 2023 I added two temporary rules: no new clothes, no new books. The underlying purpose was to disassociate happiness with quick-hit retail therapy, and become more mindful of my consumerism. It has helped! In 2025 my themes will be around intentional living, and I think the rules I'll establish for myself will be something around social media / phone use (again, trying to control those enticing quick-hit cheap and brief dopamine triggers) and I've also pondered going sober for the year - not because I think I have an alcohol problem, but because it's a default social knee-jerk "yes" that I think doesn't actually add much to my life but empty calories, headaches, and paying $22.50 for the privilege of said headache. Plus, I just want to see how I feel without it for a year. I might feel pretty great! I might feel no different! But I know I will feel I did a successful long-term experiment for myself either way! :-D
These are rules, but they are not permanent. (They are just ways I strive to be less fun at parties... hahaha.)
I love the idea of temporary rules. Or having them for a trial basis and then re-evaluating. Seems very smart and self aware.
I've done experiments in the past, but it has been awhile. Usually a week or a month. I'm impressed you'd commit to a year.
Thanks for this. Definitely food for though for me and this project.
I believe that rules are made to be broken, or at least changed, as the situation in which they exist changes. To that end, I've come up with four rules about rules (meta-rules) that I generally apply:
1. Learn the rules and why they exist (context, beneficiaries, etc)
2. Understand the consequences of not following a rule, and of following it
3. Always follow the rules, except when you shouldn't
4. When a rule needs to be changed (including getting rid of it), change it
With some slight modifications I also apply these when I'm the rule maker. For example, (3) changes to "Always enforce the rule, except when you shouldn't". Rule (4) generally follows from rule (3), because if a rule is being broken or not enforced, that is a good indication that the rule needs to be changed.
As you might have guessed, this is a topic i've given some thought to. Excited to see where this all takes you in your book project.
This is good and in line with my thinking. #3 could be an entire chapter (Rule exception handling). Arguably it's the hardest and most important thing about rules.
But then I wonder: how often in daily life am I just reacting to things, and then later on rationalize it to a rule?
It's also true a list like this is a lot of work! Bertrand Rusell joked about how hard it is to get people to think. We deeply resist it.
So part of the question I'm asking is about how most people either think about rules, or the internal/subconscious process that leads to decisions that might approxiate a rule.
I think quite a bit about Jeff Bezos’s regret minimization framework. What are the costs of inaction?
That's a good one. There are so many version of that idea: fail fast, learn by doing, etc.
The rub seems to be fear since fear isn't rational. Taking action often feels scary.
Whenever I have a difficult decision to make, I ask myself: will it help me lead a more creative life?
That's a good rule. But when would you make exceptions? If you were feeling overwhelmed or stressed about life in general, would you decide to apply a different rule?
Like Nicole I was thinking of the "Hell Yes or No" rule - I find it a very useful guideline for myself, but it's also my best example of the "opposite rule that is also good" scenario: sometimes "being a Yes man" is the best thing to do rather than make quick judgements and conserve energy. Depends on the stage of life/project/energy cycle.