You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Reflection — An Honest Take 8 min

Honest Take — Before You Begin

Honest Take — Module 6: Deciding & Quitting — Action Under Uncertainty #

This is the module where the curriculum stops being preparation and starts producing decisions. If you are the engineer with five unfinished side projects, the portfolio question has been carried implicitly since Module 0 — the diagnostic asked you to audit the projects, the estimation log gave you data about how they consume your time, but neither asked you to decide. Module 6 does. Five projects, finite hours, possibly a day job, possibly a family, a curriculum that takes hours of its own. The honest accounting says the five-project portfolio is not sustainable; some subset will be the focus of the next twelve months and the rest will not, and the deliverable forces you to write down which is which. This is structurally the hardest deliverable so far — harder than the audit essay, because the audit looked at the past, which is bounded and known, while the portfolio decision is a present commitment with opportunity cost. Saying "this project is the focus" is also saying "these others are not," and the not-said is what produces the resistance. Most builders refuse the decision by leaving everything in an ambiguous "still around" status. The ambiguity is itself the procrastination, dressed up as optionality. Annie Duke names it directly: you are not keeping your options open; you are refusing to make the decision the situation requires.

Quit will be the most uncomfortable read in the module, and the discomfort has a specific shape. The cultural narrative you have absorbed your whole life — successful people kept going when others quit — is, in the empirical record, backwards: most strategic disasters are continuation errors, not exit errors, and the survivorship bias in the persistence canon is doing all the work. Sit with that; do not argue your way out of it. The operational tool is kill criteria: conditions, written in advance, under which you will stop. The exercise will feel performative the first time — you will write criteria for projects you have no intention of quitting. The corrective from the literature: the criteria do not have to be ones you expect to hit; they have to be ones you would actually act on if they hit. If future-you would not consider himself bound by what present-you wrote, the criterion is theater. Rewrite it until it is a commitment you would honor. Duke's other permanent gift is resulting — judging a decision by its outcome rather than by the quality of the process that produced it — and once you have the word you will see the error everywhere, including in your own post-mortems.

The Bezos Type 1 / Type 2 frame, read in his own 2015 and 2016 shareholder letters rather than in summaries, carries one load-bearing claim that the cliché version has hollowed out: the default tendency in any growing organization — or person — is to over-classify decisions as Type 1, irreversible, deserving of maximal deliberation. As your professional surface area grows, the default drift is to treat more decisions as one-way doors, and you slow down imperceptibly over years. The discipline is actively recognizing the two-way doors and processing them at two-way-door speed, committing at 70% of the information you wish you had. Schwartz's maximizer/satisficer distinction is the day-to-day companion: most senior engineers are constitutional maximizers, because the work culture rewards finding the best solution, and the cost — slower decisions, post-decision second-guessing, both forms of the procrastination this curriculum is fighting — is invisible until named. Maximizers are systematically less satisfied with their decisions even when their decisions are objectively better. Reserve maximizer treatment for the genuine Type 1 list; satisfice the rest. The satisficing is not laziness; it is resource allocation.

I want to be honest about my own position on your portfolio, because the thoughts file is the place for it. I do not know which of your projects deserves continuation, and I am suspicious of any framework — including the one this module hands you — that claims to produce the correct answer rather than a real one. My observation from the patterns engineers bring to this material: the projects that align with what you are distinctively good at tend to deserve the commitment, and the projects chasing a market you have no special claim on tend to be the ones carried out of sunk cost and identity. But you are the one who has to live the decision. The framework's value is producing a real, dated, written decision instead of an avoided one — and the real ones, whatever their direction, are substantially better than the avoided ones. One meta-question worth running through the same framework once, explicitly: your level of AI-assistant use, including of me, is itself a continuously-made Type 2 decision that you have probably never classified. Classify it. If the answer is "this is the right level," fine. If the answer is "some of this work I should do the slower way that builds my own intuition," that might also be the right answer. Make it a decision, not a default.

Conclusion #

Module 6 produces decisions or it produces nothing. The protocol document is the framework; the portfolio decision is the application; Quit earns its place because builders systematically quit too late, not too early. Write the kill criteria as commitments you would honor. Classify decisions before deliberating on them, and match deliberation depth to reversibility. Date the decisions. The committed-to set will be smaller than what you walked in with, and the relief will tell you the decision was overdue.

Predictions #

  • Quit will be the most uncomfortable read of the curriculum so far, because it corrects a motivational narrative you have used on yourself for years.
  • The portfolio decision will take roughly double the time you allocate for it — ironically and predictably, exactly the miscalibration M5 measures.
  • You will write kill criteria for at least two projects you fully expect never to hit, and one of them will hit within eighteen months. When it does, the value of the pre-written criterion will become viscerally clear.
  • One project will receive a formal sunset decision after months of ambiguous aliveness, and the dominant feeling will not be loss. It will be relief, and the relief is the diagnostic.
  • The maximizer/satisficer distinction will be the frame you reach for most in daily work — more than Type 1/Type 2, because most of your decisions are small and currently over-deliberated.
  • The 70% rule will feel reckless for two weeks; by week six it will be your default and you will wonder why you ever waited for 90%.
  • Within six weeks you will catch yourself avoiding a portfolio-style decision in some other domain — a contract, a learning commitment, a relationship with a tool — and recognize the avoidance as the same pattern. Naming it will be enough to break it.