| If I had an algorithm for succeeding as a published author, would you willingly adopt it? Observing the author community, I see many doing just that. They adopt a fixed set of rules, hoping it will lead to financial gain. The problem is that in an economic model, there are diminishing returns. Markets saturate or audience preferences change. Algorithms to Live ByIn Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions, authors Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths discuss methods to take choice and, along with it, anxiety out of your life. Following a specific process can increase the probability of doing better. One example is how you go about looking to buy a house. Most people’s algorithms are to find out how much they can afford by taking on massive debt, then rush out into the market looking for the best house they can afford in the best markets. There are two ways to reset the algorithm. The book says that for a fixed period, say two to four weeks, you should look at homes with a commitment not to buy. This time allows you the grace to understand the overall market and get familiar with what you like and don’t like. Only after that period do you start looking with the intent to buy. People who follow this algorithm do better financially because they don’t impose an urgency to buy on themselves. You see, the market is dynamic, and new inventory is always coming in, we just impose urgency on ourselves thinking only what is on now is the market. You may say, “But Joe, there’s a housing shortage.”
 This is the second part of the algorithm that can change. You don’t go into a constrained market by following what others say is the best choice. For my next house, I could make sure it’s in the best school district available, because that increases housing values. But my kids have graduated. I don’t need to buy a house that has higher taxes and higher resale value in the future. When I do that, my point of optimization changes. No longer is the focus of a home purchase about buying a place that gains value or that others will bid up because we are all focused on the same goal. Instead, I change what is essential and open up choices that my seem suboptimal to others. There is a great article on the Farnam Street Blog about the distinction between an amateur and a professional called “Turning Pro: The Difference Between Amateurs and Professionals.” Let’s just look at one of them: Amateurs have a goal. Professionals have a system.
I talked about algorithms in relation to the output of the goal, but this is where things can really change. What if your algorithm is about establishing a steady-state equilibrium in your vocation? What do I mean? The professional builds the system (an algorithm) that places them in the optimal present state. Goals are all future-focused and, when achieved, leave you seeking more. However, living in the present and doing the work that supports the system leaves you satisfied, meaning you’re content now. There is nothing to work and wait for. Interestingly, this places you in a much stronger position because that state compounds over time to deliver more impact in the future. If you combine all of this, where you aren’t focusing on what others seek, and build a system that maintains your stability, you’ll do far more to accumulate advantage. Our natural tendency is to say, “Well, I can be in a stable state when…” That leaves you longing in the present and not doing the work in the moment, which is the only time you can actually do anything. So, what is the best state of stability you can have with all of your current commitments? Rather than trying to hustle and grind more, figure out how to do just enough now in the moment. Those moments don’t add up; they multiply. Read: How to Craft Authentic Reader Experiences to Thrive in a Developing Creator Economy |