Meta-Problem-Solving
Choosing what problems to engage with, where that is possible, is the most valuable skill you can cultivate. Most people call this agency.
All life is problem solving
-Karl Popper
Problems are not inherently negative, even if most definitions of the word are. Some problems are decidedly negative, but they are a subset of the problems you will face. I use the term 'problems' broadly to describe points in your life where you must make some decision, or deal with something - stall, engage, delegate, avoid, solve, or otherwise. Seen this way, problems provide the forks in the road of life, the creative decisions that define us, the hooks on which we hang meaning. Through solving problems, we learn and create, succeed or fail, connect and conflict. And then we move onto new problems. Art, business, science, personality, all progress by discovering new problems to solve - new paradigms, new techniques, new problems.
First, embrace the idea that problems are inevitable. Problems are the things that take up your time - good and bad.
Second, notice that you can largely choose the type of problems you get to solve.
Our lives are marked by the problems we face. This is how our identities are moulded. In this post, I want to talk about a deceptively simple, but powerful, approach to problem-solving. It's about stopping at the step before you engage in a problem, or even at some step before that. The kind of thinking I am describing might happen before you even knew said problem existed. What I want to talk about many people take for granted, because we all do it with varying degrees of acknowledgement. You might call it recognizing agency. You might have observed that you have often have choices when it comes to your daily tasks, in your career, in your relationships - or really in any project that takes up your time. Simply stated, sometimes you get to choose what you do and don't do. Sometimes, you can opt to work on some classes of problems at the expense of others.
I call this meta-problem-solving.
(The term meta is self-referential. It means talking about talking about something, a step removed. Physics talks about particles and matter; metaphysics talks about the how we can know these things, and how things came into being. A meta-study is a study of studies: like a summary of the different papers in a certain research area. Metacognition involves thinking about thinking.)
We all engage in meta-problem-solving, knowingly or not. You might even say that this problem-selection is part of problem-solving. But I think meta-problem-solving is a process worth untangling, because my belief is that we do it badly. We usually do it unconsciously, without engaging in the kind of long-term thinking that delivers the problem-filled days that we actually want to have. While I believe in a predetermined physical universe, I also believe that the act of reading a blog post can alter your day. That's the kind of free will worth having, and herein lies the opportunity for meta-problem-solving.
Problem-solving, without the meta, is real-time decision-making. It's the choices you make once the problem is set. Let's use an example: take the prosaic problem of what to watch on TV. The problem seems to be what and how you should watch. An answer: Netflix + Gladiator. The meta-problem-solving work happens earlier, before you decide to watch TV. The meta-problem-solving question: Should I watch TV? There are, of course, countless other meta-problems questions that you could ask. Should I own a TV? Should I buy a house (with a TV)? Should I participate in a Western society (that watches TV)? Why are we all here? ... It's problems all the way down. Meta-problem-solving is switching between levels in the problem stack hierarchy. Sometimes meta-problem-solving work must happen long before certain problems can be avoided.
(Now don't take my chosen example of TV-watching as evidence that this blog is some sort of sanctimonious life advice column implying you should be reading and doing arts-crafts each evening instead of watching Netflix - even though you should be. I am a realist, I watch - and enjoy - a lot of TV.)
The key point in the what-to-watch-on-TV problem example is that it did not have to be your problem. You could have meta-problem-solved and gone out for dinner instead. Then your problems might have been what meal to choose, feeding a growing preference for eating out, and then maybe: the problem of how to pay for more expensive dinners. Each problem selected sets off a cascade of practically-infinite potential future problem paths - that's life. Meta-problem-solving means you are more deliberate in picking the paths (to some extent).
Fixed Problems
There are sets of problems in your life where you have little choice but to face them: family problems, health issues, feeding yourself, staying alive. And even though there may have be some contingency before the fixed problems come about - when they do arise, fixed problems must be addressed. Meta-problem-solving is not useless here, it's more of a contemplative, philosophical exercise. You still have to eat and breathe, you should look after your loved ones, etc etc. These essential problems are always worth engaging.
The rest of your problems are choices you make - to varying degrees. The work of meta-problem-solving is to decide which non-fixed problems get your time and attention, and which never have to. Perhaps that's what the term lifestyle engineering refers to - another made-up term to describe good, preference-matching, decision-making .
Non-Fixed Problems
Non-fixed problems are the type you need not have. This is the realm of meta-problem-solving. In everyone's life, there are things that stand out as unpleasant to deal with - make a list! If this unpleasant thing is not something you'd consider a fixed problem, you may not have to deal with it again - with some work. But it's often the work (or lack of realised agency) that prevents action, and folks stay stuck in the mud with their unwanted problems.
Careers are a nice example where a lack of meta-problem-solving cause sub-optimal outcomes - where bad problems entrench and edge towards fixed bad problems. Most have, or have had, jobs that they found tedious. Most consider change. Some don't. Consider different tasks in your role, a different role, a different team, a different company, a different industry, a different career, you get it. The options on the meta-problem menu are endless.
The options that we do not think to take are as real, and tangible, as the undesirables we end up with because of some status quo.
Non-fixed problems that become fixed
Some problems start out as optional then become fixed. Take relationships, the longer you are in a relationship, the more it feels fixed. Because of the way we're wired, it is very tough to cut someone out of your life. Bad romantic relationships are better ended early, but the longer they go on, the more emotional and material attachment they gather. In my mind, a relationship becomes relatively fixed with marriage and absolutely fixed by having children. In the bad relationships, there are countless steps towards the fixed states, where meta-problem-solving might have prevented future divorce and heartache. Sometimes, bad relationships give you things that you would never change - like having wonderful children. So I will very pointedly state that meta-problem-solving work does not have much to say about the past, which is set, rather it looks to the future and asks: what can I do differently today that means I don't have to face this kind of problem in the future?
Optimise for interesting
A good objection at this point: (1) People don't know what they want, and (2) How can people make decisions if they don't know what is actually good for them? Fair. To this I say: they can't know what they want - but doing the hard work of thinking about what they might want can't hurt.
But before the objections rain in. There is quite-useful maxim I think applies to fruitful meta-problem-solving: optimise for interesting. Lean into the things that engage you. Do the hard work of distinguishing between the problems that thrill and those that fulfill. Meaningful problems that engage you will make time stand-still, they will fill your day and occupy your mind. And they exist, in different ways, for each individual. There are probably many more than one. You need to find at least one that can bring you some income, and the rest you can pursue because you simply want to. And this is not an excuse to avoid hard things. It's may well be a call to do hard things - as harder problems generally have higher rewards.
I've mentioned relationships. Optimise for interesting does not really work for relationships. There I'd say optimise for love - but who knows what that means. Opting for kindness is not a bad rule of thumb.
There is another problem when making decisions about the future: we are constantly changing, so which self are we optimising for? Meta-problem-solving probably works better as you get older. When you're young, your preferences may still be fluid. As you mature into salty crystallising middle-age-dom; this is likely where meta-problem-solving pays off most. By then, you know better if your physiology prefers early mornings, or that you work better in solitude, or that you prefer numbers over letters over shapes. Meta-problem-solving does not work without introspection. The very exercise is to match the kind of problems to the kind of person you are - or want to be.
Meta-problem-solving domains
Careers. Relationships. Health. We have a selection of domains where we must problem solve. Other domains we can choose. You make first make investments before you are concerned about stock prices. You can choose the sports that have better fitness outcomes, and fewer injuries - or you can just choose the sports that thrill you.
Each problem domain is an infinite set of Russian dolls. Some dolls are handed to you at birth, some you can switch out. Identity is really about which dolls you want to play with.
End-note
Astutely, you might have noticed that I have a made up a term for something that already exists by many names. Meta-problem-solving is the 30,000-foot-view, it's seeing the forest-for-the-trees. Corporate types might know it as strategic thinking (for yourself), or if you must, 'thinking outside-the-box'. I don't really care what we call it.
Meta-problem-solving, as I've defined it, appeals to me. It's a proactive, literate approach. Sometimes there is great value in putting a name, and method, to something. Here, I can use lists and words; pen and paper, to ponder my choices. Of course, there are equally valid approaches. Some people have excellent intuition, and will never need a name for meta-problem-solving - they are fortunate to be good at it already. There are also cognitive therapies like CBT or meditation or drugs that can change the way you feel about certain problems - instead of changing the underlying problem. And sometimes unwanted problems disappear entirely on their own. Stall, engage, delegate, avoid, solve... many roads lead to Rome.
But if you still read this all as rationalist fallacy, you might still have the following questions regarding the approach: Where is the spontaneity? Where is the free-wheeling contingency? To live unmoored without over-analysing future days? Is your meta-problem-solving not just some self-determining and self-limiting activity - boxing your tomorrows in the choices of today? To this I say life is too complex to predict. You can only try to know yourself, and I'd say you must try. Meta-problem-solving, by design, is a rather superficial exercise to do just this. It's real value emerges by encouraging the subtle and inchoate call for self-actualization, demanding that you ask yourself: what kind of problem-person am I? And then, more pressingly: what kind of person do I want to be?