a lite version of the Worse Is Better claim?
The key Framing is: what's Good Enough for an Outcome/Mission? (MVP)
the Simplest Thing that could possibly work
an argument for Focus?
a bias toward Resilience and simplicity and LeeWay over optimization?
acceptance of Pareto Principle?
- "anything worth doing, is worth doing poorly" - ok not quite true, but if it's not worth doing poorly, it's often not really worth doing (because getting the benefit often requires every single thing to go right with no surprised, and reality rarely support that)
- HPMOR's "Rule of Three, which was that any plot which required more than three different things to happen would never work in real life."
Gervais Principle alternative: Optimizers get promoted to ClueLess Middle Management where their inability at Prioritization and Risk Management drive everyone crazy. Smart Satisficers/Simplifiers have to jump to Sociopath Executive level.
When is this the right strategy? Vs So Good They Can't Ignore You, Mastery, etc?
Edited: | Tweet this! | Search Twitter for discussion