少点错误 05月10日 04:22
Moving towards a question-based planning framework, instead of task lists
index_new5.html
../../../zaker_core/zaker_tpl_static/wap/tpl_guoji1.html

 

本文探讨了一种通过提出问题来规划和解决不确定性的方法,以替代传统的任务列表和目标设定。作者认为,对于不熟悉的新事物,直接设定目标往往无效,因为缺乏实现目标的具体路径。文章提倡将宏观目标转化为一系列嵌套的问题,直到可以进行可测试的实验。通过这种方式,可以更好地理解未知领域,并逐步推进工作。作者分享了自己的“Thought-Tree”工具,并提供了实际案例,展示了如何将宏观目标分解为可操作的实验,以提高解决问题的效率和获得更深刻的理解。

🤔 作者认为,传统的任务列表和目标设定在处理不确定性时往往效果不佳,尤其是在面对新事物时,因为缺乏具体的行动指南。

❓ 作者提出了一种替代方法:将宏观目标转化为一系列嵌套的“问题”,直至可以进行可测试的“实验”,以此来应对不确定性。

💡 这种方法鼓励将大目标分解成更小、更具体的问题,从而更容易找到可行的行动方案,并减少因目标模糊而产生的挫败感。

🌱 作者分享了自己构建的“Thought-Tree”工具,并以“如何最大限度地发挥个人影响力”为例,展示了如何将宏观目标分解为可操作的问题,并进行实验验证。

✅ 通过这种“提问”而非“设定目标”的规划方式,作者认为能够更有效地应对未知,提高工作效率,并最终实现目标。

Published on May 9, 2025 12:18 PM GMT

Each brick = one uncertainty

TL;DR

Maybe instead of writing task lists, reframe macro objectives in terms of nested questions until you reach 'root' testable experiments.

Putting this into practice

I built a tool for myself, ‘Thought-Tree’ here, to try and systematise what I wrote in this post. Maybe it works out for you as well?

Essays I am Thinking About, and that Inspired this Post

Related essays by me

What I am planning to read

Setting 'questions' instead of goals?

I want to contribute to the world in the best way I can.

I really think that this is super hard. And in general, I think phrases like 'I want to do X' or 'I want to be Y' actually might be pretty ineffective ways of phrasing targets because it doesn't give you any hints on how to do it. My evidence for 'not knowing how to reach really ambitious targets' is a weak reductio ad absurdum one - implicitly, if I knew how to do it, I probably would've already got there (or busy working away at what needs to be done, and not writing an essay on what I don't know on Casual Physics Enjoyer ;)).

But since I am writing this, I (and maybe you) are not in that position, which implies that there's stuff that we don't know. And in my case of 'contributing to the world in the best way I can), there is a shit ton of stuff I don't know about

Maybe this is why to-do lists for big actions have pretty ineffective for me

The more I think about it, the more I realise this is why task lists and goal setting have primarily been useless exercises for me, and why I never have been able to stick to any structured task plan phrased in terms of 'do X'. It's because most of the time, if you're trying to do anything new, then by definition you don't know how to do it. This seems to be because novelty seems to be a big part of building new stuff that is important. Paul Graham, What to Do Casual Physics Enjoyer, On Good Writing

So prematurely setting a 'goal' like 'contribute to the world positively' isn't a very helpful exercise. I've tried adding more 'detail' to goals, in an effort to make them clearer and try to make it more well defined, but I tend to run into the same problem - I just don't know enough stuff to accomplish them.

This can feel overwhelming and pushes me to give up - so I wanted to try and find a better way to make 'planning' more useful to me. (Check out some more planning and prioritisation thoughts from Ben Kuhn, Impact, agency, and taste). I've also tried doing it the other way and go into just random 'do mode', but that doesn't feel right either.

But then I thought - even though we don't know how to do things, we DO know what we don't know, and that, for me, gives me a better place to start than just 'do X'. And so, recently for a given 'macro statement' like 'contribute to the world positively', I've been trying to write down 'questions / uncertainties' instead of goals instead.

Here are some of my macro statements rephrased as questions.

And then for each question / uncertainty, I nest more questions until I can find an 'experiment' to test what the answer to that question is. It works doubly well if that question has a fairly binary answer, and usually that is a sign that the nesting can stop and I can try to come up with a list of experiments. The 'answer' is then a probability that the statement is a 'yes'.

I found this approach lends itself reasonably well to time boxing, where you can just set a time limit for one of your questions, or parent questions once you get a better idea of what's involved.

An example of my current tree

Here is an example of the tree that I'm currently working on. I haven't put all the stuff here for brevity but I plan to have a website that has my tree, and hopefully helps other people make trees.

And then after that, actually try and do the things in the allotted time.

Again, this is something I've only recently been doing for maybe half a year, but I've been trying to better stick to task lists for since I was in primary school. So it's probably time for a new approach!

Positive side effects

One possible criticism of this approach is that it could be seen as 'procrastination' towards 'actually doing things'. This is similar to the trope of 'analysis paralysis', where over analysing might bias one towards this action. But I argue that doing this correctly is 'just doing things'!

Because

On the first point: I think this approach also has some positive side effects, in that, if you have those questions, other people likely have those problems as well. And so exposing the experiments online on a blog or publication is a free 'DO' action. I also think, if the question is somewhat meaningful at all, then resolving it is a creative process in itself. And I think doing things that are biased towards creation feels good.

Am I just lazy?

I have asked myself this question many times. Am I just finding ways to cope / rationalise a way to avoid 'schlep'? Schlep being the necessary boring, hard work to actually do things? Well, here is my TREE that helps me answer that question

Time boxing detail

Super rough notes On Designing Experiments



Discuss

Fish AI Reader

Fish AI Reader

AI辅助创作,多种专业模板,深度分析,高质量内容生成。从观点提取到深度思考,FishAI为您提供全方位的创作支持。新版本引入自定义参数,让您的创作更加个性化和精准。

FishAI

FishAI

鱼阅,AI 时代的下一个智能信息助手,助你摆脱信息焦虑

联系邮箱 441953276@qq.com

相关标签

目标设定 问题驱动 规划方法 不确定性 Thought-Tree
相关文章