Overthinking and how to nobble it

[andygates]

An interesting study has been going the rounds (Ars has the clearest writeup) and its got me thinking.  Not about M&Ms -- well, mmm, now you mention it -- not about M&Ms but about thinking and doing, and why I'm so very good at adhockery and starting projects and so very bad at follow-through and finishing things.

I'm very, very good at task visualisation.  I know exactly how the finished bathroom will look: I've gone over all the details of every job but I just can't find the gumption to make it physical.  I know exactly what that training session will be like but, meh, maybe I'll just surf for a bit (million-tab baby, baby: if I could I'd twinscreen each eye separately).  And yeah, I know exactly what healthy food I'll do tonight but meh, I've already thunk that, let's have dirty pizza instead.  I've turned into Grampa from the Lost Boys: read the TV guide, don't need the TV.

Let's assume for a moment that this article provides a working hypothesis: if I think about things less, I'll do more.  I may even fall into fewer gumption traps (the most obvious ones are Lane Rage and For Want Of A Bolt) as my planned-stuff is less rigid, so less derailed by unplanned stuff.

How in the seven hells does that actually turn into a thing to do?  All I can think to do is make a bunch of to-do lists and spin the bottle, but that's a project and I'll get bored of it after I've worked out the list parameters and upgraded the bottle for some custom dice or maybe made an app for it.  

You lot are different think-meats in different heads; barring the solipsistic horror of the entire Universe being my imaginings, you must think in different ways.  Do you hypervisualise and then get bored?  If you don't... what do you do?  Are you always surprised when things work out as expected, because "as expected" is a null set?  How do you do anything without the mental map beforehand? 

Comments

[andygates.livejournal.com]

"First cut" paralysis is sometimes a factor, but I'm old enough and have done enough to push over it. Indeed, rescuing a first-cut screwup can energize a project sometimes.

[jarkman.livejournal.com]

For me, I don't think it's about the first cut going wrong.

It's more that the beginning of the implementation is the first point at which one is really committed to
(a) actually doing all the work
(b) the risk of failure and maybe
(c) the risk that the finished thing will not be a shiny as the planned thing, and hence the ruination of a currently-shiny vision.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

A kicks in with large physically dull tasks: painting a wall is fun but all four? Maaaan.

B, less so, because I generally have a good story to accompany the failure. If I haven't set myself on fire, it's a bad make. The kayak's draft name is "Dunning-Kruger"...

C is close: it invites another round of plan-refining. Is this really the best plan? What if I skip some doing-time and revise it?

In "make" projects, this is just stalling. In fitness and gardening projects, it's lost opportunity, because we're not static things.

[jarkman.livejournal.com]

In a sideways way, it is also a lost opportunity in make projects, because both stalling and scope creep burn up more of the project's initial juice, and that means it's more likely to stay on the shelf forever.

My slogan of the moment is 'The worst thing that might possibly work', which I attempt to deploy as an antidote to the endless refining.