**One-sentence formulation:**
*Goals tie your wellbeing to outcomes you don’t control; systems let you win every day by executing processes you do control.*
### What Adams means by “goals”
A goal is a specific future outcome: something you either achieve or fail to achieve.
On Adams’ terms, goals have several built-in problems:
- They are binary: success or failure, nothing in between.
- They depend heavily on factors outside your control.
- They delay satisfaction until completion.
- Until the goal is achieved, you are failing by default.
This creates a psychological trap. Even steady progress feels like loss. Motivation collapses when timelines slip. Identity becomes hostage to results.
Adams’ point is not that goals are bad intentions—it’s that they are **fragile motivational structures** in a stochastic world.
### What Adams means by “systems”
A system is a repeatable process you execute consistently that increases the probability of good outcomes, without requiring any single outcome to succeed.
A system:
- Can be executed daily
- Is under your direct control
- Produces immediate “wins” through participation
- Compounds advantage over time
Examples:
- Writing every day instead of “becoming an author”
- Exercising regularly instead of “losing 30 pounds”
- Reading broadly instead of “becoming smart”
- Practicing persuasion instead of “winning an argument”
With a system, success is defined as *showing up*. If you ran the system today, you succeeded today.
### Why Adams prefers systems
Adams assumes reality is noisy, probabilistic, and unfair. Talent is unreliable. Planning is brittle. Luck plays an outsized role.
In that environment, optimizing for outcomes is irrational. Optimizing for **process** is rational.
Systems:
- Reduce anxiety
- Preserve motivation
- Prevent despair during setbacks
- Keep you moving when goals would stall you
Over time, systems expose you repeatedly to opportunity. Outcomes emerge as side effects.
### The deeper insight
Goals ask: *“Did I win?”*
Systems ask: *“Did I do the thing?”*
One binds your sense of success to the world’s response.
The other binds it to your own execution.
Adams’ claim is blunt but practical: **you don’t control results, but you do control repetition**. Repetition beats intention.
### Why this is a foundational knob
Like framing, systems operate upstream of most visible success. People who appear “lucky” are often just running better systems for longer periods.
Once you shift from outcome obsession to process ownership, you stop waiting for permission from reality to feel successful. You become harder to discourage, harder to derail, and more likely to stumble into wins you never planned.
Tomorrow’s knob builds on this again—because once you’re running systems instead of chasing goals, the question becomes which internal levers actually keep those systems running.
quotingThis is my attempt at honoring the late Scott Adams’ contribution to the world.
nevent1q…p8md
Over time, Adams articulated what he called a *user interface for reality*—a practical framework for navigating the world as it actually operates, not as we wish it did. These ideas are not about moral virtue-signaling or abstract truth-seeking; they are about agency, persuasion, survival, and authorship in a reality mediated by human perception.
I will be posting one of his core bits of advice each day—what he referred to as the *knobs*: adjustable parameters that determine how effectively you author your own life, influence outcomes, and interact with other people inside complex social systems.
---
## Knob #1: Accept the Frame (Subjective Reality)
**One-sentence formulation:**
*Reality is experienced through narrative frames, not raw facts; if you argue facts without first identifying the frame, you are operating inside someone else’s interface.*
### What “the frame” is
A *frame* is the invisible boundary that defines how information is interpreted before reasoning begins. It determines what counts as relevant, what is assumed, what is emotional, what is moral, and what is even allowed to be questioned.
Frames are not facts. They are **contextual lenses**.
Most people mistake the frame for reality itself. That mistake is the primary source of confusion, manipulation, and wasted effort in politics, business, relationships, and public discourse.
### Subjective reality, not relativism
Adams is not claiming that objective truth does not exist. He is pointing out that humans do not interact with objective truth directly. They interact with **compressed, biased, story-driven models** of reality that feel true because they are coherent, emotionally resonant, and socially reinforced.
In practice:
- Truth does not persuade.
- Frames persuade.
- Facts are interpreted *after* the frame is accepted.
This is why intelligent people can look at the same data and reach opposite conclusions—because the disagreement is upstream of the data.
### Why arguing facts usually fails
When you argue facts inside a hostile frame, you legitimize the frame itself. You accept its premises, its moral structure, and its implied authority.
Examples:
- Answering a loaded question accepts the accusation.
- Defending yourself inside a false narrative validates the narrative.
- Providing data to someone who has framed the issue emotionally is ignored or reinterpreted.
Once you are inside the wrong frame, no amount of factual accuracy will save you.
### What “accept the frame” actually means
It does **not** mean agreeing with the frame.
It means recognizing that:
1. A frame is present.
2. It is shaping perception.
3. It is optional.
Once you see the frame as a construct rather than reality, you regain freedom of movement. You can:
- Reframe the issue
- Step outside the frame entirely
- Or use the frame tactically without believing it
The key shift is epistemic: *the frame is not the truth; it is the interface.*
### Why this is the first knob
Every other knob—persuasion, confidence, identity, leverage, emotion, narrative—depends on framing. If you misidentify perception as reality, you will constantly fight uphill battles against invisible constraints you never agreed to.
Adams’ insight is brutal but accurate:
**You don’t lose most arguments because you’re wrong. You lose because you never noticed the rules of the game.**
Seeing the frame is the beginning of authorship.
Tomorrow’s knob builds on this: once you see the interface, the question becomes how to move within it without being owned by it.