Notes / "minimum viable" as a decision-making proxy

When making important decisions in life, we consider a range of factors. Ultimately, the decision we make is a result of our priorities and how each decision impacts those priorities.

The language we have to describe concepts influences how we think. I want to introduce "minimum viable X" as a concept for describing priorities when making decisions.

Normally, we might split our priorities into categories like "must-haves/deal-breakers," "high-priority," and "low(er) priority." This makes it seem like must-have/deal-breaker factors are the most important and what we should be optimizing for.

But, this isn't always the case. Sometimes, we want to optimize only up to a certain point.

An example from my own life is choosing between jobs. Making enough money is a must-have factor, but it's not the number one thing I want to optimize for. Rather, I have a minimum viable salary that must be met, and after that, I would rather optimize for other factors like ideological alignment with my work and work/life balance.

The fundamental concept behind minimum viable is that our priorities aren't static. They change and adapt to our conditions. Money is a top priority when you're broke and a lower priority when you're rich. Minimum viable is a way to identify the point at which our priorities shift.

Of course, the "most optimal" way to make decisions would be to have a continuous plot of our priorities in relation to our conditions, but this isn't practical. Having minimum viable in your vocabulary can help you escape the trap of optimizing for something past the point of diminishing returns.

It's also a useful exercise in rethinking what your longer-term priorities are. Minimum viable encourages us to think into the future—what do I want out of life after I get what's right in front of me? Are my current goals what I want to spend my life chasing, or do I want to pivot after achieving some level of success?