I see a few problems with this heuristic, however, and I’m not sure quite how to resolve them. More specifically, I tend to float freely between different projects because I am quick to abandon things if I feel like they aren’t working out (compare this to the mindset that some game developers have when they realize their latest game idea isn’t very good).
There are two big issues with the “living in the mainline” strategy:
1. Most of the highest EV activities are those that have low chance of success but big rewards. I suspect much of your volatile behavior is bouncing between chasing opportunities you see as high value, and then realizing you’re not on the mainline and correcting, then realizing there are higher EV opportunities and correcting again.
2. Strategies that work well on the mainline often fail spectacularly in the face of black swans. So they have a high probability of working but also very negative EV in unlikely situations (which you ignore if you’re only thinking about the mainline).
Two alternatives to the “living on the mainline” heuristic:
1. The Anti-fragility heuristic:
Use the barbell strategy, to split your activities between surefire wins with low upsides and certainty, and risky moonshots with low downsides but lots of uncertainty around upsides.
Notice the reasons that things fail, and make them robust to that class of failure in the future.
Try lots of things, and stick with the ones that work over time.
2. The Effectuation Heuristic:
Go into areas where you have unfair advantages.
Spread your downside risk to people or organizations who can handle it.
In generally, work to CREATE the mainline where you have an unfair advantage and high upside.
You might get some mileage out of reading the effectuation and anti-fragility sections of this post.
There are two big issues with the “living in the mainline” strategy:
1. Most of the highest EV activities are those that have low chance of success but big rewards. I suspect much of your volatile behavior is bouncing between chasing opportunities you see as high value, and then realizing you’re not on the mainline and correcting, then realizing there are higher EV opportunities and correcting again.
2. Strategies that work well on the mainline often fail spectacularly in the face of black swans. So they have a high probability of working but also very negative EV in unlikely situations (which you ignore if you’re only thinking about the mainline).
Two alternatives to the “living on the mainline” heuristic:
1. The Anti-fragility heuristic:
Use the barbell strategy, to split your activities between surefire wins with low upsides and certainty, and risky moonshots with low downsides but lots of uncertainty around upsides.
Notice the reasons that things fail, and make them robust to that class of failure in the future.
Try lots of things, and stick with the ones that work over time.
2. The Effectuation Heuristic:
Go into areas where you have unfair advantages.
Spread your downside risk to people or organizations who can handle it.
In generally, work to CREATE the mainline where you have an unfair advantage and high upside.
You might get some mileage out of reading the effectuation and anti-fragility sections of this post.