Aim for reasonable rather than rational — a slightly suboptimal plan you will actually stick with beats an optimal one you abandon.
The pressure test: a strategy you cannot describe to yourself calmly at 2am during a drawdown is not your strategy, whatever the spreadsheet says.
Links
Typed edges. Anything below the line was authored on the other note and derived here.
supports →Don't rely on in-the-moment willpower — build environments and rules that make the good decision the automatic one.Both give up on the idealised agent. Parrish designs the environment around human weakness; Housel designs the plan around it. Same concession, different layer.
← has exampleQuality is a requirement you negotiate with the user, not an absolute you chase.
The same trade in a different domain: a shipped, maintainable, slightly imperfect system beats an optimal one that arrives too late or never.
← supported byInvesting success is a matter of temperament rather than IQ — the binding constraint is behavioural, not analytical.If the constraint is temperament, then a plan chosen for stickiness rather than optimality is not a compromise — it is solving for the actual bottleneck.