1. Part of choosing a rule is choosing what the threshold is for breaking it.
2. You don’t break rules, you change rules and then follow the new rule. So before you ‘break’ your current rule make sure you know what the new rule will be and that you like the new results better.
3. Cultivate the rule that rules are followed, that on the margin you are always going to underestimate the value of long term investment in habits and virtue cultivation, and that you don’t change them in the moment without thinking about it carefully first.
Cultivate [...] that on the margin you are always going to underestimate the value of long term investment in habits and virtue cultivation
Why though? Shouldn’t you recalibrate immediately to make this no longer predictable? Or is such recalibration the meaning of the quoted sentence? In that case, why phrase it so, it seems to risk overcorrection, not noticing when the opposite advice becomes relevant, or else requires undue caution in following your own advice, at which point it becomes a self-fulfilling flaw/advice combo? (Following the advice cautiously ensures that the flaw is not fully removed, and so the advice remains relevant.)
My principles in these situations are:
1. Part of choosing a rule is choosing what the threshold is for breaking it.
2. You don’t break rules, you change rules and then follow the new rule. So before you ‘break’ your current rule make sure you know what the new rule will be and that you like the new results better.
3. Cultivate the rule that rules are followed, that on the margin you are always going to underestimate the value of long term investment in habits and virtue cultivation, and that you don’t change them in the moment without thinking about it carefully first.
See this old comment of mine for a very similar perspective.
Why though? Shouldn’t you recalibrate immediately to make this no longer predictable? Or is such recalibration the meaning of the quoted sentence? In that case, why phrase it so, it seems to risk overcorrection, not noticing when the opposite advice becomes relevant, or else requires undue caution in following your own advice, at which point it becomes a self-fulfilling flaw/advice combo? (Following the advice cautiously ensures that the flaw is not fully removed, and so the advice remains relevant.)