|
Hello Reader, Here's the pattern: you set a target. You hit it for a week, maybe two. Then a bad day arrives (low energy, fractured schedule, unexpected chaos) and you miss. Not by much. But by the goal's own logic, a miss is a miss. So you log the failure. Then you miss again. Then the goal quietly dies, buried under a pile of "not todays." The goal didn't fail because you lacked discipline. It failed because it only had two states: perfect or pointless. And that binary is a trap. The ABC Goal System breaks the binary. It sets three tiers for the same target: A = ambition (stretch) B = baseline (solid) C = contingency (minimum that preserves momentum) This isn't lowering the bar. It's making the bar scalable. You still aim for A. But B is still progress. And C keeps the chain unbroken. Picture Tuesday night. You planned to work out for an hour. Then a late meeting, a messy dinner, a kid who won't sleep. At 9:30pm you face the choice: do the "real" workout or do nothing. With a binary goal, you do nothing. With ABC, you do 15 minutes of Tier C stretching and stay inside the system. That's the shift. You stop negotiating whether you'll act. You only negotiate at what level. Why Use ItMost goals fail because they turn variability into collapse. Rigid goals assume stable days. Real life doesn't deliver them. Energy fluctuates. Time compresses. Context shifts. If your goal only "counts" when conditions are ideal, you've built a system that breaks precisely when you need it most. Binary goals also corrupt how you keep score. Set "1,000 words" and write 500; your brain doesn't register progress. It registers a shortfall. The gap between actual and ideal becomes the headline. String enough of those together, and the goal feels like a steady stream of defeats, even when you're accumulating real work. ABC redefines winning: You protect motivation by making progress visible under imperfect conditions. When to Use ItUse ABC goals when:
Don't use it when…
ABC is for momentum-based domains. It's not a substitute for requirements. How to Use ItIn Apollo 13, the crew doesn't land on the moon. That was never the point after the oxygen tank exploded. The mission instantly re-tiered: A (lunar landing) became impossible, so B (safe orbit) became the target, until that failed too. They dropped to C: get home alive using whatever still worked. Every constraint forced a recalculation. Every recalculation kept them inside the mission. That's ABC thinking: one destination, multiple valid operating levels. Apply it by thinking in capacity, not intention:
Next StepsPick one goal that keeps breaking on bad days. Where does it force a pass/fail outcome? Write your A/B/C tiers in one line each. If C feels "too small," ask: is your pride trying to sabotage continuity? For two weeks, track what triggers the drop from A to nothing. Time? Energy? Mood? Environment? Ask yourself: if I hit C for 30 days straight, what would that quietly prove (and what would it make inevitable)? Momentum comes from showing up on ordinary days. Think Independently, JC Share or Join 👉
|
Re:Mind is a weekly newsletter exploring mental models and frameworks that help you think clearly and make better decisions. Each week, I share practical insights and tools that transform complex ideas into wisdom you can apply immediately. Join me in making better decisions, together.
Hello Reader, My wife Taylor hosts a podcast called Doomed to Fail with her co-host Farz. The premise: take history’s most notorious disasters and epic failures, analyze the red flags, and ask the uncomfortable questions: How did things go so wrong? Could this have been avoided? They invited me to talk about a mental model that answers both questions. It’s called second-order thinking. And I wanted to share the core ideas with you here, because this pattern is everywhere. The Scene That...
Hello Reader, Austria and Germany share a border, similar cultures, and comparable healthcare systems. Ask citizens of both countries whether they support organ donation, and roughly 85% say yes. Yet Austria has a 99% organ donor registration rate, and Germany sits at 12%. Same values. Same medical infrastructure. Opposite outcomes. The difference? Austria uses opt-out registration. Germany uses opt-in. In Austria, you are considered a donor unless you actively decline. In Germany, you're not...
Hello Reader, February 1, 2003. Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas during reentry. Seven astronauts die. NASA investigators later traced the failure to a foam strike during launch (a piece of insulation that hit the wing at 500 mph). Engineers knew about the strike. They analyzed it. They presented their findings to management sixteen days before the disaster. Their slide said: "Review of test data indicates conservatism for tile penetration." Management saw no red flags. The...