# \[Dface\] Discussion of Introduction to Theory of Constraints
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036
**Category:** Friendly
**Created:** [April 12, 2025, 9:56pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036 "2025-04-12T21:56:54Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2025, 9:56pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/1 "2025-04-12T21:56:54Z")
**Topic Summary:**
Discussion of TOC about where to start.
**Goal:**
Want to start discussion on TOC cuz I wanna see if I can use it in my life and get some practice.
**CF Relevance:**
TOC is part of CF
I wanna try using some TOC ideas in my spare time to see if I can make them work. If not it’s ok but the weakest link stuff and optimizing local optima is what im curious about.
Here’s some text from [Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031):
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> They’re optimizing **local optima** , but that doesn’t significantly help the big picture (the **global optima** ). We want success at our goal, e.g. making money, and the improvements we make are a means to that end.
Knowing what is local optima, the big picture, and goal sound important. Would verbalizing what my goals are be a good first step to finding the weakest link? I kind of wanna just jump into finding what the weakest link in the stuff I do instead. I wanna do it for the my philosophy learning, gaming, video editing, and maybe some smaller stuff like social conversations.
For this quote:
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> TOC advocates **goals** that involve a _process of ongoing improvement_ so things can be good now _and_ in the future. E.g. a company should aim to make money now and also in the future.
I don’t see how the example connects with the idea of
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> **goals** that involve a _process of ongoing improvement_ so things can be good now _and_ in the future.
“a company should aim to make money now and also in the future.” sounds like keeping things the same like make a certain amount of profit to keep the company going. What is improving? Is the company making money now and also in the future the good now and in the future part of the quote?:
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> so things can be good now _and_ in the future.
Making money now and also in the future is good cuz it keeps the company going. If they didn’t make money then that would be bad and the company can get shut down. Does good have something to do with goals? Like the goals are being achieved? Keeping the company alive to me counts as a goal.
I think I get where the process of ongoing improvement comes in this part of the quote:
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> a company should aim to make money
Like you can have a guy who is putting toppings on a pizza in a restaurant and if he’s a beginner then training him is the process of ongoing improvement cuz after that pizzas can come out faster and the restaurant can serve more customers and make more money I think.
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> Success at our goal is called **throughput** , which means moving resources through a system to a goal at the end.
Usually, I try not to think of goals or the success at a goal cuz it’s like jinxing it to me. If I don’t think so much about the goal then whatever I’m trying to work at will work itself out probably. I don’t think this is a good thing tho. Learning what throughput is sounds so important for improving the weakest link.
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> An example of throughput is turning raw materials into intermediate components and then finished products in a factory (which are then sold to make money).
I wanna try some examples of throughput:
**Example #1:** I want wind blowing from my fan to circulate the air. Is plugging in my fan to the power and turning it on throughput? It’s blowing air now that’s what I want.
Example #2: I want to stay hydrated. Is getting a glass of water and drinking it throughput?
Example #3: Want to make a post about [Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031). I want to do it so I can learn more about TOC. Is going to CF, making a post, copying a copying a quote, and replying to it throughput? I think the goal is learning about TOC. I think the goal is also to make a post engaging with [Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031).
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 13, 2025, 3:43am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/2 "2025-04-13T03:43:05Z")
> [@Dface](#):
>
> **Example #1:** I want wind blowing from my fan to circulate the air. Is plugging in my fan to the power and turning it on throughput? It’s blowing air now that’s what I want.
the blowing air is the throughput.
> [@Dface](#):
>
> Example #2: I want to stay hydrated. Is getting a glass of water and drinking it throughput?
>
> Example #3: Want to make a post about [Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031). I want to do it so I can learn more about TOC. Is going to CF, making a post, copying a copying a quote, and replying to it throughput? I think the goal is learning about TOC. I think the goal is also to make a post engaging with [Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031).
yes
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2025, 9:12pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/3 "2025-04-15T21:12:50Z")
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> In general, there’s only one bottleneck. This is like a metal chain: a chain has only one weakest link.
I wanna think of some examples of weakest links:
Example #1: Ok, let’s say I want to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich, but I’m out of peanut butter. Would me having to go to the store make the peanut butter the weakest link? Idk maybe if I’m like in a hurry. I have to make a pb&j within the next 20 mins and get it to my sibling at school. The bread, jelly, and me assembling the ingredients has to wait on me buying peanut butter. I don’t know if the physical bread and jelly have to wait tho they’re not alive.
Example #2:Let’s say I’m sick with a sore throat and I want my throat to feel better. I get some some cough drops to soothe my throat. Is me being sick the weakest link? No, I’m already sick; I don’t think I can literally get rid of the sickness. My goal is to soothe my throat. That way I can have a better day. I have the cough drops with me already. All I gotta do is use them. I’m ok with waiting for how long it takes to get relief. I think the weakest link is actually using the cough drops cuz it takes a while to suck on them. I can get them, unwrap them, and put them in my mouth in seconds.
That makes me wonder: Is it always a bad thing to have a weakest link? Like is it ok to have a weakest link sometimes?
Example #3: I wanna think of a weakest link that’s actually something I want to improve. Let’s say I want to talk at a social gathering, but I’m too afraid of what they’ll think. Is the weakest link having expectations? I think I can say words and I can reply to someone if I think about it enough. What will they think of me tho? Are they thinking about me? How much? Do they even care that much? I may make a talking mistake but how bad is it if I make a mistake? Will they judge me? Im actually getting more used to people judging me.
Edit: I wanna fix this question in example 1: “Would me having to go to the store make the peanut butter the weakest link?” to this “Would me having to go to the store to get the peanut butter the weakest link?”
Edit 2: Wait nevermind on Edit 1. I think I need break or something. I’m reading things wrong.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2025, 9:44pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/4 "2025-04-15T21:44:06Z")
> [@Dface](#):
>
> That makes me wonder: Is it always a bad thing to have a weakest link? Like is it ok to have a weakest link sometimes?
Can it be avoided? Like can you build a chain with no weakest link?
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2025, 10:15pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/5 "2025-04-15T22:15:38Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Can it be avoided?
I dont know actually. I think there is always going to be a weakest link. Cuz by definition if one link is slightly weaker than the rest then it’s the weakest link.
Maybe if you make all links in the chain all withstand 5000 newtons of force exactly then there would be no weakest link. That sounds like a lot of work tho to make the links all match up
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2025, 10:20pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/6 "2025-04-15T22:20:30Z")
Making all the links equal would be the balanced factory, which I wrote about, which isn’t good anyway.
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2025, 10:34pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/7 "2025-04-15T22:34:59Z")
Ohhhh I remember that. That makes more sense
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2025, 6:34pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/8 "2025-04-19T18:34:23Z")
Reading over the Focusing Steps:
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> The steps are:
>
> 1. Find the constraint.
So find the weakest link first? Ok. Idk how to find it or be sure of it. In a metal chain, the weakest link is the link that withstands the least amount of force before breaking.
Step two:
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> Optimize the constraint. (Make sure it’s used efficiently, e.g. if the bottleneck is a machine or tool, make sure it isn’t idle for lunch – not everyone should eat lunch at the same time.)
Optimize the weakest link? That doesn’t mean improve right? Like make the weakest link better by upping the force it can withstand? What about tossing the chain for a chain with a stronger weakest link? Is that optimizing the weakest link?
Optimizing the weakest link in the metal chain example could mean… something? idk.
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> Make sure it’s used efficiently,
Using something efficiently has to do with time, or energy, or strength maybe? Let’s say you use the metal chain effeciently to lift a lot of heavy objects. If the weakest link can withstand 5000 Newtons of force, you wouldn’t only carry things 1000 Newtons of force at a time. It would be more efficient to make the load heavier and carry more things at once.
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2025, 9:13pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/9 "2025-04-20T21:13:09Z")
Step 3 of Focusing Steps:
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> Subordinate everything else to the constraint.
I don’t know what that means. Does that mean that other parts of the system have to work under the constraint. Like the constraint says what goes?
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> The constraint has priority, so don’t let other parts of the system cause problems for the constraint.
Like since the constraint is already slow, don’t make it go slower?
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> Also don’t let the non-constraints produce more than the constraint can process.
I think that makes sense cuz if you do that you’ll have too many parts left. It’s a matter of math.
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> Add more capacity at the constraint.
Do you have to add more after doing step 1, 2, and 3? Or can you just skip to step five and see if the constraint moved? Ohh, I see now that after doing steps 1, 2, and 3, the constraint doesn’t move.
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> Optimize and subordinate first.
That makes sense cuz what if the constraint isn’t working at full potential and what if there are other things causing the constraint issues. If you just add more capacity it doesn’t sound like the problem is being addressed.
Edit: I meant to post this on the other thread: [[Dface] Discussion of Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036). I think this reply is ok like this too tho
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2025, 9:21pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/10 "2025-04-20T21:21:42Z")
> [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
>
> > [@Introduction to Theory of Constraints](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2031/1):
> >
> > Add more capacity at the constraint.
>
> Do you have to add more after doing step 1, 2, and 3? Or can you just skip to step five and see if the constraint moved? Ohh, I see now that after doing steps 1, 2, and 3, the constraint doesn’t move.
That’s a good question. The idea is that the constraint usually won’t move without doing step 4. But you’re right that it could move after doing the first 3 steps. If you think that may have happened, skipping step 4 and going to step 5 makes sense.
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2025, 9:30pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/11 "2025-04-20T21:30:33Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> But you’re right that it could move after doing the first 3 steps.
Ohhh, it could? If you use the constraint efficiently, can that increase its capacity?
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> If you think that may have happened, skipping step 4 and going to step 5 makes sense.
Ok ill keep that in mind
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2025, 9:32pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/12 "2025-04-20T21:32:03Z")
> [@Dface](#):
>
> > [@Elliot](#):
> >
> > But you’re right that it could move after doing the first 3 steps.
>
> Ohhh, it could? If you use the constraint efficiently, can that increase its capacity?
Say a machine can process 10 widgets per hour. And it’s the bottleneck. Then you add a night shift to use the machine at night. Its capacity in widgets per hour is the same, but it might not be the bottleneck anymore since it’s now finishing 240 widgets per day instead of 160.
You may want to try reading _The Goal_.
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2025, 9:37pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/13 "2025-04-20T21:37:26Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Its capacity in widgets per hour is the same, but it might not be the bottleneck anymore since it’s now finishing 240 widgets per day instead of 160.
Ohhh I thought something having the lowest capacity meant it was the bottleneck.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> You may want to try reading _The Goal_.
Yeah, I did read some like a year ago. I’ll try to read it again.
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 8:37pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/14 "2025-04-27T20:37:54Z")
Focusing Steps for learning philosophy attempt:
What is the goal?
I was thinking the goal is getting good at getting good at things. Like get good at learning like practice and know what part of a skill to focus on.
Brainstorm of other main goals:
- not be in the dark in how to find success in things
- make sense of life thigns
- make sense of hobbies
- not just leave it up to chance to get good at something
- don’t just do the same thing over again and expect success
- change the method for getting good at things
- learn how to get smart like other friends and family
- Learn how to be smart finally
- Learn how to be intellegent finally
Note: I don’t really see a fun reason in my brainstorm for why I want to do philosophy. I think I usually have fun reasons when I play a video game. Like marvel rivals, my fun reason is something. I want to get better and get good at hero shooters.
Step 1: What is the weakest link?
Fun. Having fun is the weakest link. I could get motivated and find the topic to focus on but I don’t really see a lot of fun being made. I think having fun is importatn cuz ill want to do philosophy or at least the thing related to it.
Other weakest links ideas:
Not being motivated to do philosophy
Not knowing why I should focus on a topic
Not knowing the reason to do a topic
Low skill level when approaching big topics
Not enough interest in doing small things
Step 2: Optimize the constraint or use the constraint efficiently.
Maybe if I try to do fun things most of the time, I could be more motivated to do something. It’ll probably get old fast trying to only do fun things though
I do fun things on occasion like play video games i like even though now most games these days I find it hard to find the fun stuff. Maybe im gonna need to do step four and increase my capacity for fun.
Try to do “the goal”, but also try to find something fun to do. Find something I enjoy doing so when I do the goal I make sure Im actually doing something and not nothing.
I think the capacity for finding something fun or enjoyable might be 1 thing per 20-30 minutes. Maybe it’s over more time.
Can’t help but think how often I find enjoyable things to do in other aspects of life not just philosophy.
Cant think of other ways to use the weakest link efficiently. Efficiently means relates to time and energy right?
Step 3: Subordinate the constraint
Idk i think that’s enough for now
P.S. maybe i should do focusing steps for this thread. I notice it’s hard to just ask questions now. Im running into why should I keep going through with this thread?
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 9:45pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/15 "2025-04-27T21:45:24Z")
> [@Dface](#):
>
> Fun. Having fun is the weakest link.
I don’t know how to make philosophy fun. I already find it fun to contemplate a bunch of philosophy stuff. My best advice is to try a bunch of things and see what is fun.
Do you find conversation more fun than practice? Is it more fun to learn philosophy when it’s useful to a conversation?
> [@Dface](#):
>
> Brainstorm of other main goals:
>
> - not be in the dark in how to find success in things
> - make sense of life thigns
> - make sense of hobbies
> - not just leave it up to chance to get good at something
> - don’t just do the same thing over again and expect success
> - change the method for getting good at things
> - learn how to get smart like other friends and family
> - Learn how to be smart finally
> - Learn how to be intellegent finally
Maybe write out why you want these goals. Like why do want to be smart? That may seem obvious, but isn’t it a stereotype that smart people are depressed and nihilistic (at least a certain type of smart person)? You can also think: why I do I need to make sense of life things? Can’t I just live and let things happen?
I did some writing like this in order to get the courage to the join the forum. You might want to just write it in private, but I think writing it out explicitly is very helpful. That way you’ll see whether you actually have good reasons for things, and maybe you don’t and that’s why you’re not so motivated to learn philosophy.
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 10:26pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/16 "2025-04-27T22:26:44Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> My best advice is to try a bunch of things and see what is fun.
I think I already try that a little but prob not enough.
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> Do you find conversation more fun than practice?
I didn’t think about conversation being more fun than practicing something. I think I do find convo more fun cuz it can be good for keeping things real. A topic feels more tangible when discussing it and bringing up real issues.
Practicing is fun cuz seeing the results are nice, but it’s still hit or miss whether it’s gonna work or if something is the right thing to focus on.
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> Is it more fun to learn philosophy when it’s useful to a conversation?
Yeah, but learning through convo doesn’t sound good to me cuz it’s like im relying on others to do my own learning. I should learn more by myself. I don’t know tho
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> You might want to just write it in private, but I think writing it out explicitly is very helpful.
I’ll try it out cuz I want to know what is up
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 10:55pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/17 "2025-04-27T22:55:29Z")
> [@Dface](#):
>
> I think I already try that a little but prob not enough.
tbf, I think you have tried a bunch of things already. There’s probably still lots more to try though.
> [@Dface](#):
>
> Yeah, but learning through convo doesn’t sound good to me cuz it’s like im relying on others to do my own learning. I should learn more by myself. I don’t know tho
Being self-reliant is definitely good. It’s also good to take advantage of others, in a mutually beneficial way, when the opportunity is available. There are dangers. Mainly that the other partner quits mid projects. At that point you might have already put in lots of effort but can’t get as much reward as you thought you would. See [Projects, Activities and Using Discussion Forums](https://criticalfallibilism.com/projects-activities-and-using-discussion-forums/).
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 11:01pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/18 "2025-04-27T23:01:28Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> You might want to just write it in private, but I think writing it out explicitly is very helpful.
The “but” is wrong writing and could confuse you. The point is that getting it out of your mind and out in words whether private or public would be good.
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2025, 9:00am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/19 "2025-04-28T09:00:49Z")
Im looking at the evaporating cloud pdf from:
> **[Curiosity – Evaporating Clouds Trees](https://curi.us/2475-evaporating-clouds-trees)**
>
> These trees explain Eli Goldratt's problem solving method called Evaporating Clouds. Click to expand or view the PDF.
Grandchild of the “Usage” node :
> Search the cloud for reasoning you’re suspicious of. Look for things that aren’t really necessary or required. Is there an alternative?
Whats a cloud? Should i keep reading to find out? Ive been reading from left to right.
Look for things that arent necessary or required? Is that like an extra detail that can be left out?
Alternative? I think should read prob read more to find out.
Grand grand child of “Usage” node:
> Find a way one of the nodes could be changed. You can do this by acting to create a new situation or by changing your reasoning.
Changed? Oh i think this child node of “Usage” makes more sense:
> Since everything is logically linked, and there’s a conflict, then there must be a logical error.
If there is a logical error in a node then change it? Idk im reading on ahead.
Child of “Tips” cloud:
> The goal of the cloud is to represent people’s thoughts, not to be logically perfect. Write down what you actually believe that’s leading to the conflict.
Represent people’s thoughts? Including your thoughts in your own conflict?
Also not logically perfect? Logically perfect like making a truth table for Or(x,y)?
Grandchild of “Learning about Clouds” node:
> Read Goldratt’s The Choice first, second or third. It’s non-fiction discussions with his daughter. It’s got more general-purpose philosophy for how to live and think, and less focus on business.
Do both novels “It’s Not Luck” and " The Goal" talk about clouds? Im reading the goal right now
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2025, 5:41pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036/20 "2025-04-28T17:41:53Z")
> [@Dface](#):
>
> Step 1: What is the weakest link?
> Fun. Having fun is the weakest link. I could get motivated and find the topic to focus on but I don’t really see a lot of fun being made. I think having fun is importatn cuz ill want to do philosophy or at least the thing related to it.
If you have trouble finding philosophy activities you like, then you could try relating philosophy more to something else you like, and do some philosophy as part of doing that other thing. If you do parts of philosophy that are clearly relevant and useful for something else you really like, then you may like doing them because they are just part of doing that thing you like. Especially if you think some bit of philosophy is the _best_ way to make progress on the thing you really like, then you may like doing it, just like you might like doing anything else that sorta seems off-topic but you decide is the best way to pursue the thing you like.
If that doesn’t work, philosophy might not be for you. That’s something to consider. Or you could try looking at a wider variety of philosophy related stuff. It’s a big field with many ways to approach it. Or you could try to work up to philosophy by doing some relevant non-philosophy activity, e.g. reading fiction novels might help you like reading books more which could then lead to enjoying reading philosophy books more.
If you’re just struggling with lots of stuff, not philosophy specifically, and you’re having trouble finding fun stuff, then that’s a pretty common issue and there are many, many, many candidate solutions people have come up with but it’s hard to know which would work well for you.
[Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/dface-discussion-of-introduction-to-theory-of-constraints/2036.md?page=2)