Redefining my goals based on Goodhart’s Law
I’ve always been one for goals. I’m not sure if it’s who I am, or if it’s something I became conditioned to. The result of it has been setting a target, attaining it, and then proceeding on to set a bigger target. And I got good at it, gamifying life.
Start with the result and work backward was a simple enough strategy. Up until now, I hadn’t realized at what cost. I realized there was something wrong when I hit several goals. The whole loop didn’t make sense anymore. To give a simple example, I hit the “enlightened” level in the Todoist karma. Todoist is a task organization and tracking tool I use. Enlightened is the highest level there is. No way to go from there but down. And so, without noticing it, I redefined how I used the tool. I think I might have even started to use it how it was intended — to properly prioritize my tasks and remind me of things I needed to do. It became less about increasing my karma points and more about keeping track of what I was working on. I even reduced the number of task items I put. I also stopped tracking the number of hours I spent coding and instead focused on deep work and learning (Right now I note down concepts I don’t understand when I work and read up on them later). The point here being, I’ve always been a strickler for measurement and optimization in everything I do. I’ve always aimed for efficiency and progress.
Lately, I’ve been questioning that premise. Constantly asking myself, “What next? Do I set a bigger goal now?”. And then, I stumbled upon a tweet that shed some light on the questions I had. It sent me down the rabbit hole of understanding the psychology behind goals, why we set them, and more importantly why we suck at it.
Enter Goodhart’s Law
I spent the weekend reading up on the work by economist Charles Goodhart and what is today known as Goodhart’s Law. A simplified version of the same can be found on Wikipedia. He proposed that any observed statistical regularity tends to collapse when pressure is placed upon it for control purposes. I like Marilyn Strathern’s definition better — “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”.
To put it simply, humans optimize for results; consequences be damned. The goal for us becomes attaining a metric, and we forget that the process matters too. In fact, I wager it might matter more than the results. The purpose of reading is to gain useful knowledge, not to pass an exam and yet we optimize for the results of the exam at the cost of actually learning. Still wondering why we cram for the finals?
What does it mean for me?
Reading about Goodhart’s law gave me a lot of insight into what mental model I want to employ going forward. It’s not by any means a silver bullet but it does help provide some clarity around what I’ve been struggling with.
In 2018, I revised how I set goals and focused on systems over results. I figured the system would ultimately yield the result. This was inspired by Bruce Lee’s “Letter of the Dragon”. To perfectly summarise it, Lee said “A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.” While it worked in helping me attain systems I am happy with, I did not take the time to write up the purpose of the systems other than I knew they were good for me. I didn’t get to the profound “why”…Or maybe I just never care about it at the time.
So I guess for me this means going back and figuring out why I truly care about the things I do. What matters and why. I feel that might provide a better intrinsic motivation that allows me a more fulfilled life that is not gobbled by an infinite loop of constantly raising the bar. Some peace. It means asking “why” until there are no more whys.
I figure that might take some time, and maybe then I’ll come and write about my revised “goals”.
P.S — You might enjoy this great book by Simon Sinek on starting with why. I’d read it some time back. It never really made a lot of sense, up until now.
