I am an unabashed fan of David Epstein’s writing. He
manages to write about complex concepts and explain experimental and
theoretical results through his adept use of anecdotes, analogies, and drawing
parallels. He does so without overextending the metaphors and straining the
constraints of his arguments, as it were.
Since I had read and liked his previous books, I greeted the
news that he was working on this book on one of his messages in his Substack
with great excitement. He is a non-fiction writer that I will unreservedly read
regardless of the subject, although this subject is one that had intrigued me
recently and throughout my engineering life.
This book is a delight; even better, Epstein left it open
ended as he is going to continue the conversation about constraints through his
Substack newsletters. It is extremely exciting.
As an engineer, I have had to deal with constraints in my
work all my career. Even though I am well aware of the necessity of having
constraints — as Epstein reiterated; I had defaulted for an idealistic
perspective of problem solving, which was to place myself in situations where I
can negotiate minimal constraints. Engineers get extremely excited about white
sheet design — meaning that the design is to be done from scratch — even though
white sheet designs never happen. Usually, the first decision made it to lay
out the constraints: physical, mathematical, practical, economical, ad
infinium. We engineers are seduced by the freedom promised by unfettered
design spaces because we truly believe that an open design spaces encourages free
form thinking. Free form thinking is what we blindly believe will lead to creativity
and innovative thinking that is unimpeded by the detritus of reality; in other
words, perfection. The irony is of course, that we are engineering in reality
and not in a fantasy world. The first chapter in the book is a serious reminder
of how unfettered thinking can demolish rather than enhance creativity through
too many degrees of freedom; too many degrees of freedom usually means nothing gets done because no decisions ever
get made. I have experienced that firsthand. Beware of giving the creative types
too much rope, as they will inevitably hang themselves.
As a counter to the first chapter, the second chapter in the
book delves into a constrained environment — perhaps an over constrained
environment. The juxtaposition shows that constraints forces the creatives to
be creative. The third chapter tells the story tells how humans — given the
freedom to roam — will inevitably take the short cut because if the constraints
are not imposed, human nature will force the decision makers chase ghosts.
David Epstein always manages to find historical anecdotes to
illustrate his points. In this book, tells some of my favorite stories. In
particular, the story behind Keith Jarrett’s Koln Concert, how it came about,
the kind of constraints that he had to face — constraints that are seemingly
impossible to overcome, and the brilliance of the solution. In the same
chapter, the story of how J. S. Bach severely constrained his composing to
force himself to excel in the exacting create some of the most creative and
original music in history. There are stories that I was not aware of that amply
demonstrated the point: constraints are not just beneficial but are essential
toward creating original solutions by necessarily creating obstacles in order
to force the creative mind to be creative.
One of the seductive mindsets that many of us naturally fall
under is of originality. Who would turn down the opportunity to be original? David
Epstein convincingly argues that originality may not be so original after all,
that humans have a proclivity to default to the procedural and known when there
are no constraints because there is nothing there for us to push against. This
is an essential point that usually needs to be iterated repeatedly during any
problem-solving effort. Ironically, constraints are what sparks actual
originality.
During my early years in the working world, I was made aware
of the book by Eliyahu Goldratt titled The Goal. Indeed, I could
probably dig up my own well thumb copy from my boxes of books in the basement.
Goldratt called the idea behind the book: the Theory of Constraints. I will
leave the explication of Goldratt to Epstein and this book, but it was a
delight to find that the ideas that had fascinated me early in my working life
had been cited in this new book.
Chapter 9 is probably the most personal chapter. It seems as
if it was a very personal chapter for Epstein, it certainly was for me because
it clarified some of the lessons I had learned from Oliver Burkeman’s book 4,000
Weeks. I believe that I read that book because Epstein had lauded it, and
he was prescient. This chapter is personal because it forced me to face my own
work habits, and how ineffective my habits have been in trying to accomplish
what I wished to accomplish. Be forewarned that the crux of the discussion is
NOT how to be more efficient with our time, but how to be effective with our
habits as we apply ourselves in doing what we wish to do. Even as I had
subconsciously changed my own habits prior to reading this chapter, reading the
chapter now clarifies my personal goals.
One of the more effective tools that Epstein used in this,
and all of his books, is that he introduces initial examples, as he did in
Chapters 1 and 2, as well as many other stories; he then deliberately and
repeatedly return to those stories as landmarks, reminding the readers and
reiterating the essential lessons that those stories demonstrate.
The book is categorized by four distinct parts, each part
serves a purpose, and Epstein devotes three chapters to each part. The most
hopeful and useful part is Part IV: Collaboration and Contentment. Epstein uses
this last part to drive home the crux of his point and to inspire the reader to
sum up all the lessons that he had presented in the previous chapters and tie
them up into a coherent whole. I would not say he tied it up in a neat red bow,
the topic is too complex to do so, but it is close enough.
Even though I admire the book and I enjoyed Epstein’s story
telling ability, there were a couple of
points that he made which I felt was either too simplistic or came to a
conclusion that I did not. Which means that I will need to dig deeper into the
granularity of the argument, which is what a good book is supposed to do.
