Dearest Reader,
This post has an equation.
You have been warned.
- Kourosh
… 3 months later …
We can’t do everything at the same time. The options are many, but the actions are singular.
We need to take out the garbage, but something just fell to the floor. We need to remember to move a thing to the garage, but we’re doing the dishes. We need to buy stuff from the store, but right now, we’re not going to the store.
One means of managing this is to use a “tripwire,” a reminder for our Future Selves. Maybe we put the garbage bag near the exit. Maybe we put that thing for the garage dear the door. Maybe we put a sticky note grocery list on the fridge.
While these can be helpful, there are times that we forget or miss such reminders. Not only that, but they can start to blend into the background.
Every time we pass by something without addressing it, it blends further into the background, decaying into the decor, becoming clutter. Not only that, but clutter itself has a tendency to grow and breed more clutter, hence, it’s sticky.
To this end, I’m coining the term “Sticky Decor Decay.”
It has zero basis in scientific rigor. But, I don’t care. I’m making an equation!
Let’s say something unaddressed has a 50% increased chance of blending into the background. So, for example, if the tripwire had a 0% chance of blending into the background in the first instance you’d see it, by the time you pass it 5 times without addressing it, it has approximately a 97% chance of blending into the background.
It has become part of the decor.
Here’s the equation:
F(T) = k(THL^n) /(P*M)
Where
- F(T) = Current percent chance that the tripwire will stick out when passed
- T = Initial percent chance that the tripwire will stick out when passed
- H = Strength of Habit of clearing that area
- L = Percent of degradation when tripwire is passed without addressing it
- n = number of times the tripwire has been passed without being addressed
- P = Current state of surrounding physical clutter
- M = Current state of mental clutter
And now that there is an equation, it’s totally scientific! Right? Right??
- Kourosh
PS. The equation is quite likely totally wrong, missing something, or has something in the numerator where it should be in the denominator. I’d love to hear your feedback. Replies to this email go straight to my Inbox.
PPS – have a listen to the podcast version of this post here.
