Picking a title for this little riff was harder than it usually is. “Bias for inaction” popped up, among other things.
But the correct naming of what I wanted to reflect on is more akin to aiming.
I believe in action. Doing lots of stuff, eventually figuring out what stuff is good. Having lots of ideas, eventually having one that’s good.
But I also believe that there’s a spectrum involved. So it’s not binary, action or inaction. It’s a question of how much prep goes into shaping what action is taken. How much time is taken to aim the rocket before it launches.
Depends on what’s at stake, how large the spectrum of possible actions to take is, and how much time is available to get it right.
If the spectrum is literally unlimited, it’s a requirement to aim. Random action won’t cut it in the realm of infinite options.
If the game is high stakes, meaning the potential loss is hard to gain back with future wins, then aiming is also necessary.
If the options are limited, the game is medium stakes, but there’s not much time (i.e. no do-over time), then aiming is also necessary.
And so in some cases, taking a second to aim before firing ones cannon can pay off quite a lot.
In cases with unlimited possibility, a bare minimum might be setting up some kind of grid across the spectrum, and then making sure to fire evenly distributed across that grid. Even without aiming, that ensures a distribution that’s more likely to find something than a full randomiser.
Even better would be setting up a grid, then prioritising which sectors to aim at by some kind of estimated likelihood of success.
It’s not a bias for action alone that takes us forwards. It’s considered actions. It’s a bias for the right action, which requires just a short amount of overview and aiming first.