Consider even a single exception to totally undermine any rule. Consequently, only follow rules with no exceptions[1]. When you do encounter a legitimate exception to a heretofore-exceptionless rule, immediately discard the rule and replace it with a new rule—one which accounts for situations like this one, which, to the old rule, had to be exceptions.
This, of course, requires a meta-rule (or, if you like, a meta-habit):
Prefer simplicity in your rules. Be vigilant that your rules do not grow too complex; make sure you are not relaxing the legitimacy criteria of your exceptions. Periodically audit your rules, inspecting them for complexity; try to formulate simpler versions of complex rules.
So, when you encounter an exception, you neither break the rule once but keep following it thereafter, nor break it once and risk breaking it again. If this is really an exception, then that rule is immediately and automatically nullified, because good rules ought not have exceptions. Time for a new rule.
And if you’re not prepared to discard the rule and formulate a new one, well, then the exception must not be all that compelling; in which case, of course, keep following the existing rule, now and henceforth.
[1] By which I mean “only follow rules to which no legitimate exception will ever be encountered”, not “continue following a rule even if you encounter what seems like a legitimate exception”.
Edit: I feel like I haven’t made my core point strongly enough, so here’s an addendum.
Why do I say that good rules ought not have exceptions? Because rules already don’t have exceptions.
Exceptions are a fiction. They’re a way for us to avoid admitting (sometimes to ourselves, sometimes to others) that the rule as stated, together with the criteria for deciding whether something is a “legitimate” exception, is the actual rule.
The approach I describe above merely consists of making this fact explicit.
This is an interesting way of thinking about things, but you have to trust yourself not to constantly invent new exceptions. I suppose your ability to remember the rule places a natural limit on length.
Remember, the idea is that exceptions don’t exist. You’re not “inventing new exceptions”, you’re reformulating the rule to encompass things that would have to be exceptions to the old rule.
Done this way, it will quickly become evident if you’re gerrymandering the rule so much as to effectively neuter it; that’s when you say “ok, clearly this isn’t working; time to rethink my life”.
That sounds very close to the meta rule of being only allowed to change the rule to more precise rule. So you have the rule of not eating cookies and come across a very special cookie. Making an exception opens the door to arbitrary exceptions. But what about changing the rule to allow only cookies that you have never eaten before? That is clearly a rule that allows this special cookie and also future special cookies, satisfies the culinary curiosity without noticaby impacting the calories.
There is another alternative:
Consider even a single exception to totally undermine any rule. Consequently, only follow rules with no exceptions[1]. When you do encounter a legitimate exception to a heretofore-exceptionless rule, immediately discard the rule and replace it with a new rule—one which accounts for situations like this one, which, to the old rule, had to be exceptions.
This, of course, requires a meta-rule (or, if you like, a meta-habit):
Prefer simplicity in your rules. Be vigilant that your rules do not grow too complex; make sure you are not relaxing the legitimacy criteria of your exceptions. Periodically audit your rules, inspecting them for complexity; try to formulate simpler versions of complex rules.
So, when you encounter an exception, you neither break the rule once but keep following it thereafter, nor break it once and risk breaking it again. If this is really an exception, then that rule is immediately and automatically nullified, because good rules ought not have exceptions. Time for a new rule.
And if you’re not prepared to discard the rule and formulate a new one, well, then the exception must not be all that compelling; in which case, of course, keep following the existing rule, now and henceforth.
[1] By which I mean “only follow rules to which no legitimate exception will ever be encountered”, not “continue following a rule even if you encounter what seems like a legitimate exception”.
Edit: I feel like I haven’t made my core point strongly enough, so here’s an addendum.
Why do I say that good rules ought not have exceptions? Because rules already don’t have exceptions.
Exceptions are a fiction. They’re a way for us to avoid admitting (sometimes to ourselves, sometimes to others) that the rule as stated, together with the criteria for deciding whether something is a “legitimate” exception, is the actual rule.
The approach I describe above merely consists of making this fact explicit.
This is an interesting way of thinking about things, but you have to trust yourself not to constantly invent new exceptions. I suppose your ability to remember the rule places a natural limit on length.
That’s what the periodic audit is for.
Remember, the idea is that exceptions don’t exist. You’re not “inventing new exceptions”, you’re reformulating the rule to encompass things that would have to be exceptions to the old rule.
Done this way, it will quickly become evident if you’re gerrymandering the rule so much as to effectively neuter it; that’s when you say “ok, clearly this isn’t working; time to rethink my life”.
That sounds very close to the meta rule of being only allowed to change the rule to more precise rule. So you have the rule of not eating cookies and come across a very special cookie. Making an exception opens the door to arbitrary exceptions. But what about changing the rule to allow only cookies that you have never eaten before? That is clearly a rule that allows this special cookie and also future special cookies, satisfies the culinary curiosity without noticaby impacting the calories.