Ok i think I did that with automating habits and playing video games. I’ll try doing doing stuff i like and relating philosophy to it.
It was interesting the more I did the thing I liked and the more intuitive I kept the philosophy habit the less I questioned doing the philosophy habit. Practicing often and automating habits ended up working and I fitted them with playing often.
Yeah i think that may be the way to go.
I dont consider it much :(. I dont know why I think I can like anything if I put my mind to it. That may be naive or something
I have a good feeling im finding it difficult to find stuff fun. I enjoy doing some things but lot of the time they end up feeling painful to do.
I like thinking about having fun as a goal to doing something, but for some reason, it doesn’t sound reasonable to me. Idk if it’s cuz I think Im gonna have to do things that I dont find fun and they are things I need to do (e.g. work or chores).
Maybe fun isn’t everything? Like just cuz youre not having fun with something doesn’t mean you could be curious first.
I’m working on finding the constraint in irl things like video games and reading.
I try to find the constraint when I fight a boss in Bloodborne. I was trying to find what the system of beating the boss was waiting on. I sometimes find that there’s more than one way to avoid a boss’s attacks(and not die) and that helps me complete the goal in an easier way.
It’s also nice doing the focusing steps cuz you get to figure out what your goal is more
I want to make eggs and bacon for breakfast. The throughput is heating up eggs and bacon on a pan and placing them on a plate to eat.
I want to pick up my sibling from school. The throughput is getting in my car, driving to their school, picking them up, and then driving back home. Idk if going back home counts. I jus wanna be back home after picking them up.
Picking a subway sandwich to eat. The throughput is telling the clerk a choice of meat, the kind of cheese, telling them the toppings and sauce, and then paying
The things I listed as throughput just sound like describing the system not throughput.
Im analyzing what throughput is in the quote above:
Is success at our goal another way to say throughput? Is throughput also “moving resources through a system to a goal at the end?” I think “which” in the quote is referring to the word “throughput”. So I think it’s a yes for the second question. I think the first question is also yes cuz “called” tells me i can describe, “Success at our goal” in one word.
I wanna say why or why not 1, 2, and 3 are througput examples.
I think in 1 the eggs, bacon, heat from stove, pan, spatula, n plate are resources. Idk actually not sure what resource means. I think heat is a resource that im using to heat the raw food n making it edible.
In 2 I think the energy I use to get up n drive is a resource. I use it to handle the car and move my body to pick up my sibling.
In 3 the money i use is a resource cuz i use it to pay for the sandwich.
The goal is the plate of food, the sibling getting home, and the sandwich. Throughput can be measured by basically how much of the goal is being achieved: 1 plate of food, 1 sibling home, 1 sandwich. Throughput is commonly measured as a rate (amount per time), e.g. a factory produces 500 products per day.
Ok it’s good to know what is the goal for finding throughput.
Oh ok throughput means I can put the goal in numbers. That sounds a little awkward but i dont use the word measure a lot.
Ok to me it makes more sense to measure the goal in a facotry as a rate cuz then you’ll know how much money ure making. If I did that with my examples, it’s like why?
Examples of finding the bottleneck:
Example #1:
Let’s say i playing a team shooter game and there’s only two targets in front of me and my teammate. For simplicity, no one moves and we all just shoot our weapons that do the same dps. One enemy has 300 hp and his teammate has 250 hp.
Is the bottleneck the enemy with the least hp? Let’s’ assume they don’t shoot back and when one enemy dies it’s over for the enemy team. I would say yeah cuz the 250 hp target would go down first if my team focuses him. He’s the weakest link
Example #2:
Goal: Get a drink from my fridge and bring it back to my room.
System: Get up from my chair, go down stairs, grab bottle water from fridge, and go back up stairs and open drink.
Table of parts of the system:
Steps for getting a drink
Time of process
Get up from chair
~2 seconds
Go down stairs
~10 seconds
grab drink from fridge
~3 seconds
Go back up stairs
~10 seconds
Open drink
~2 seconds
I would say the bottleneck is me walking around to get the drink. That’s the slowest part of the system that everything has to wait on. To improve the bottleneck maybe I can get a minifridge in my room to get my drinks. I don’t know what step that is for focusing steps. I would say it’s step 4 cuz im increasing the capacity of retrieving a drink by gettin it close to me idk.
A limiting factor is your dps. You can only shoot a limited amount of bullets before you guys get gunned down. You don’t want to waste any with poor target selection. There isn’t excess capacity for your shots.
Ahh ok theres only so much damage one could do before they get gunned downed. I had to look up what a limiting factor was n i remember using the idea in chemistry.
Ohhh so if my shots did have excess capscity then they wouldnt be the limiting factor right? I thought excess capacity meant like infinite capacity. I dont think thats what excess capacity means
Im sorry i wrote this wrong I meant to say only my teammate and i shoot. My bad. However i do like thinking about the example where everyone shoots.
So if everyone was shooting (my team and their team), then at some point the enemy team will die or my team will die. Let’s say my team’s hp mirrors the enemy’s.
There’s only a certain amount of shots that my team and the other team can dish out. If my team shoots the 300 hp target and the enemy team shoots my 250 hp teammate, then they’ll have to use less shots to kill us. Since we wanna outgun the opponent then us using our shots right matters. Our dps is a limiting factor cuz reasons. idk i only used limiting factor or regeant in chemistry.
So in chemistry the limiting regaent is the chemical in a reaction with the least amount available. That’s the first to run out before you can make any more product. The other non limiting ragaents have excess capacity i think. Is that similar to the amount of dps we have? Yeah cuz there’s a limited amount of dps my team can dish out.
I think it’s called a limiting factor cuz it limits the amount of the goal that we get. Nah there’s something else limiting about the dps, like it limits us getting the goal or not. Like if there is just enough dps then we get the goal, but if there is not enough then the goal doesn’t happen.
Idk i think the concepts of limiting factor n dps may be hard for me cuz it’s hard to think of them inuitively
yeah, but like if there’s 1% of things that are important to focus on then without like a good method that’s 99% of things someone is focusing on that’s not important.
I see. Yea, Elliot says bad methods/attitudes care about every detail. I think in practice no one every manages to focus on 99% of a complex system. I think there are just too many things to focus on (for complex systems).
I remember tho that ET said something like the mind is good at bringing up important problems to attention or something. I wanna look for that quote. I think that’s related to this discussion.
Many people think it’s good to be sensitive to any changes – it’s similar to someone saying that they will update their conclusion based on any new evidence (although it may be a small update). They think it’d be irrational to get some new evidence and make no adjustment to your conclusion. But it’s actually better to have robust conclusions that are insensitive to most details. If most details are irrelevant, then you can focus your attention on key issues.
I think you can check if the spout has excess capacity if you think about it on its own. Like, if the water is flowing down from there really fast or could flow down there really fast then the size of it is already good enough. I think that may tell you that the constraint is somewhere else.
In a game called Little Big Planet, you could use logic and some tools to create player levels. Sometimes when a level broke, I would isolate some logic to see if it was working well on its own. If it did that told me to look for the “constraint” or mistake elsewhere.
Goal: get water to the bottom. I think get water through all the tanks.
I remember there was something important about factors in TOC. I know there’s the related idea that there’s parts of a system. I think most parts of a system have excess capacity. Also, that system has to be functional. I wonder how all that relates to factors. Im looking this up.
Ok, I saw that most factors in a system have excess capacity. Why didn’t I remember that? Cuz I liked using the words ‘parts of a system’; that was easier to remember.
Factor: middle spout. The middle spout is part of the water flowing system.
Other factors: The other spouts. They’re part of the system.
Why is the middle spout the constraining factor? Idk my first thought is that it slows down the water flowing to the bottom. Since the goal is to get water to the bottom then whatever is slowing that down may be the constraining factor.
I forgot what is a constraint. After checking, I saw that it was the factor that limits throughput. For the Marris Consulting example, throughput means the amount of water flowing through. Maybe it’s how much water flows over time. I have to rewatch the video.
In the last sentence of the above quote, it says that the other spouts have excess capacity and increasing them won’t increase water flow. That means one way to find a constraint and I guess fixing it, is to increase the size of the spouts until you find that the water flow has increased. That may be complicated to do in other situations cuz if there’s 99% of issues that don’t need attention, then that’s a lot of issues to go through just to find the constraint.
The reason why it seems useful is because it looks like you’re getting more of the goal(i.e. it looks like: more numbers = more of the goal). What is the goal tho? Being specific seems like it’ll help. Also, knowing what the system is seems useful cuz then you may figure out what happens when you make an individual spout bigger. You’re looking at the bigger picture that way.
It’s a trap cuz you’re increasing something that already has excess capacity. What does getting more do? Thinking about the bigger pic will help.
