My wife sent me a reel from FB of Matthew Dicks talking about his 2025 goals, and reading it made even me think it was “too much”. The same reaction I have when I look at my huge goal lists of the past. But I admire the dive technique. Let’s pick some of them apart to see if they give me inspiration or can help me progress in my own thinking. There’s a video version, but his blog post has the content in a more easily digestible format (https://matthewdicks.com/resolution-update-september-2025/). I love the fact that someone else blogs about goals in a similar fashion to me — setting them, monitoring them, and holding themself accountable publicly.

Status	Career Goals	Career To Do	Home Goals	Home To Do
Progress		8th novel Advice for Kids book Write solo show 150 letters Homework for life app 25 more videos on YouTube, TikTok Perform solo show Revise Storyworthy Academy Storyworthy courses 6 Speak Up events Pitch 3 TEDx Attend 8 Moth events Attend MothSlam Win a Moth GrandSLAM Pitch Marc Maron x 3 Newsletter x 50 Self-confidence course Anti-loneliness product	Don’t die Organize basement Clear garage	Lose 10 pounds Pushups Situps Planks Cycle Medical scans Replace backyard shed Refinish hardwood Travel to Europe Text siblings Photo children x 365 Avoid comments on bodies Play poker 6x Memorize lyrics 5x Read x 12 Digitize DVDs Memorize poems Monitor x 12
Stalled		Golf memoir 3 picture books Childhood memoir 3 Op-ed pieces 4 letters to father 6 letters to authors Pitch show to 6 theatres 24 Eps of podcast Standup x 6 Pitch American Life x 3		Eat new vegetables Golf handicap Get together with siblings Photo with Elysha x 52 Playhouse reunion Surprises x 12 Time with Bengi 6x Practice flute 4x / week Dinner parties x 3 Time’s list of children’s books Wedding footage

If you’re following along at home, my analysis isn’t about his goals or level of progress. It is more about insights into another dataset to see if I see any challenges. He includes both personal / life goals and professional / career goals in the overall list, some with progress and some without. Yet I find it interesting that many of the ones he made progress on seem more like sub-goals or metrics to me, not full goals.

For example, he says his goal is pushups+situps+planks+cycling, along with weight loss, and to eat 3 vegetables he’s never tried. While most people would treat weight loss as perhaps a goal, all of those to me seem more like “functional health and fitness metrics”. Maybe even put that under “don’t die!”. If you took the pushups as one of them, would it be “bad” or lack of progress if instead of doing pushups 4x in a week and situps 4x in a week, you accidentally did pushups 5x and only managed situps 3x? Different parts of the body, sure, but they are complementary activities not competitors, other than for time.

Maybe it’s clearer when it comes to writing. His intention was to write 1 novel, 3 kids books, and 3 non-fiction titles, as well as a new solo show. And 24 episodes of a podcast. These activities are NOT complementary — spending time on one is at the expense of the others. And there is only so much gas in the tank. An author at Bouchercon talked about how they are writing 4 different series currently, and as they schedule time for one, it comes at the expense of readers who want one from the other three series. I have had similar concerns about the different projects that I want to do…even with yesterday’s post about a new Quest of the Quill 2025 (trademark pending, hehehe), I designed it around any type of writing counts, not one specific form. Obviously, this author’s goal was to produce more written content, and I think that might be a better goal, with each of the 32 other products adding up to a single wordcount metric. And yet, with some of them down, maybe there’s a complementary metric for how many combined minutes the videos are + the solo show + courses + speak up/moth/pitches.

I also feel like some of the items that he did are more “to do” items as you only do them once. Like replacing the shed, in comparison with a more general concept like organizing the basement or clearing out the garage, both of which have sub-elements that are likely vague.

When it comes to family, it does seem like there’s some sort of overall engagement goal. Writing to his father. Texting his siblings. Getting together with his siblings. Photos with his kids and wife, even digitizing old stuff or making wedding footage. He shows progress on some, and not others, but some of the others are tradeoffs…similar to the gas analogy above, you only have so much social battery energy too, and it takes more to “increase” than to “maintain”. I found that when I disaggregated things as much, I felt like I was “not progressing” when in fact, doing ANY combo of the items counts as progress towards an overall “engagement” goal. You can’t improve all things at the same time.

There is one goal I find fascinating. He wants to win a Moth GrandSLAM. For most of his goals, particularly writing, he talks about “pitching” rather than “placing” articles, op-eds, etc. Because he can’t control the outcome, he can only provide the input and hope. For others, he’s focused on the “how” or what he can control, like texting or travelling. But this one, he wants to “win”. Having seen the Toronto Blue Jays just lose to the LA Dodgers after going the whole season and post-season, all the way past the 9th inning of game 7, and in the end, all the winners or losers can do is play their best to give themselves the best chance at winning. They can’t control the outcome, however much the sports rhetoric is after the fact, claiming that they “set a goal”, never lost sight of it, and landed it in the end. Yet a puff of air or an extra bounce, and the game goes the other way. So why isn’t the goal written as “get to a GrandSlam?” You might want to win an Oscar, so you take roles that lend themselves to Oscar consideration, and do your best, but after that, it’s beyond your control.

Did I get anything out of reading someone else’s goals?

I’ll check out StoryWorthy and his app, that’s pretty direct. Mostly, though, it was just cool to use a dataset other than my own to try and figure out how I would structure things. Of course, that doesn’t mean he should. Our brains all work differently, and what might work for me, wouldn’t work for him. I simply enjoyed seeing his thoughts and tracking…

For those who know me, they know that I’m heavily into frameworks. It’s one of my biggest strengths and equally my biggest weakness in learning. If I’m learning about, I don’t know, metal fabrication and moulds, I need to start with some sort of framework for my thinking. I can’t just have a bunch of random bits told to me with “learn by doing”, I really need some sort of schema that tells me how various bits of metalwork, mould building, history of blacksmithing, industrial design and amateur techniques fit together or my brain just flounders. Let me give some practical examples.

In previous posts, I’ve talked about a Psych course I’m doing through The Great Courses. The professor is engaging, the material is interesting…and I’m floundering. Because there is no overall structure where she says, “Okay, listen up, there are 8 areas you need to know about in an Intro to Psych class, and here they are…”. She just has 36 lectures about 36 topics. How do they all fit together? I have no idea. There’s a text that goes with the books, a guide of sorts, but it tells me nothing. I could seemingly do them in any order and it wouldn’t matter. It’s more like a 1980s TV show where there is no continuity between episodes.

French learning had a similar challenge for me. There’s nothing I received anywhere that says, “Hey, here’s a structure for all languages, let’s work through three main structures.” I at least had the advantage that I knew English, aka I knew how language works, but the parts that made sense to me were things like conjugations laid out in a Bescherelle. For avoir, for etre, for verbs with -ER endings, for verbs with -IR endings, etc. However, when they said “Oh, you just learn gender as you go”, I floundered. I did almost 10 months of French before I said, “This is bonkers”. I went through all my feedback from training sessions, all the corrected gender stuff, and made up my own list of rules. Which solved 99% of the problems I had. I did the same with pronunciation. Again, same result. I went from making what the teachers flagged as some 50 errors in an hour of conversation to making none, or at least, I eliminated Level 1 errors. Because I had a framework that told me how words went together better. I went from struggling to get my B to being able to aim for a C.

I am still doing DuoLingo, but I switched from French to Spanish a few months ago. And guess what? I’m struggling. Because it is all experiential learning. There is no framework, no structure to say, “Hey, here are the personal pronouns, here are the conjugation rules, here is ‘have’ and ‘be”, etc.”. It’s literally jumping into “I want water” by teaching you what I, want, and water are in Spanish but nothing about what it would be if you have water, or you want juice, or they need bread. If that phrase isn’t in the day’s lesson, oh well. Which I’m still working through, but I’m finding less than helpful…its only based on memory, and as I don’t have an environment where I’m seeing / using Spanish, the memory isn’t being reinforced. I almost think I should do a month, and then go back and repeat all the units from before. Or a week perhaps, some sort of constant refresher. I know there are options, just have to figure out what works for me. Although, I already know what works for me — some sort of framework.

When it comes to personal projects, frameworks can be my undoing when combined with high standards.

Personal projects

When it comes to personal projects and planning, I am a goal hoarder, almost. I have LOTS of goals, LOTS of projects. I’ve never met a project that didn’t seem like a possibility if it was interesting. Yet I have one giant challenge that I struggle to address. I call it domino paralysis.

Let me show you how the framework and my standards mess me up. Right now, I have a project to clean my main basement area. A particular spot in the basement is a multi-use area. I have a couch across from a TV, and a desk down one side. In the middle of the space is a large work table, meant for temporary projects.

I need to clean the table first, collapse it most likely, and clear it out. On the table are a bunch of tools that I want arranged more handily on the desk. Currently on the desk are a computer, a 3D printer I need to repair and add another one, some tools, and access to a whiteboard on the wall. The computer should probably move to the floor, under the desk, but close enough that cables and wires can run to the wall (I have an Ethernet cable there) and video to the TV, but I also need to be able to either use a monitor or use the distant TV as a monitor. In the past, I used a laptop on a rolling table, it worked well, but the laptop is relatively dead. I actually have three that are there (laptop, PC, and a netbook) that Jacob and I are going to convert to video game systems running retro game consoles. Those can move under the desk, most likely, but under the desk, I already have 4 game systems that I want to connect to the TV. I have a credenza that the TV sits on that can hold multiple game systems (not designed that way, but I modified it), and I need to hook all the systems up. Equally, I need some storage space for some regular stuff, materials, etc., and the only real place for that is on some shelfs to the left (next to the couch) except those bookshelves are filled with DVDs that I will eventually ditch.

So, I look at it and see the dominoes. I need to move the DVDs for the work materials, the work materials and the video games for the computers, the computers for the 3D printers and the tools, the tools for the table, the table for the swing space, etc. Annoying squirrel brain, I know.

But there’s something that intersects with that process. I want to “visualize” the framework…what are all the pieces, how do they all fit together…if I move the tools to Point A, does that mean I’ll just have to move them again? My standards want me to do it well, maybe even perfectly. But I need the whole framework, not just some of it. And I want to optimize my efforts. The idea used in all sorting systems — touch it once — paralyzes me because I don’t have an optimal solution. I don’t know where everything will end up. And unlike most organizing systems that assume you have empty space where something goes, and you have space for everything, I don’t quite have that. There is a reason why I need swing space to do certain things. I ditched a ton of computer stuff a couple of years ago, for example. And that helped. But it also left me half-done.

If I let my squirrel have free rein, it will chase the dominoes back to the source. I have lots of space in the back of my basement, except the shelves are filled with books. If I get rid of the books, which I intend to, I’d have TONS of space for things to temporarily reside while I sorted other dominoes. Except I want to “process” the books as I ditch them. Long term, I’d like digital copies of them, and if I can download stuff easily, I do. But that is a huge process all on its own. To get through it, I need to spend about 18 months or more of dedicated project time. Then move stuff there, then blah blah blah.

Between wanting to see all the pieces, the high standards I have for doing it right the first time and not wasting energy that I don’t have available to waste, and the sheer volume of projects, I finish far too few. I’ll save a writing example until after the video I found.

A random YouTuber enters the chat

I was scrolling the other day, watching various videos to kill time, and I came across a video of a guy who had bought a used horizontal bandsaw and was cleaning it up. Never saw the guy before, I don’t have a yen for workshop tools, don’t care about solvent and cleaning supplies. But the first bit was engaging and I suddenly found myself watching a 25-minute video about a guy cleaning a used bandsaw. What I found interesting was his explanations as he went. A strong framework, good narration, expertly “broken up” into digestible sub-bits. Before the video, I didn’t even know horizontal band-saws were a thing. It was extremely satisfying.

During the video by Joey B in a channel called “BPS shorts”, he mentioned he was building a rocket and had been working on it for many years. It was a long-term passion project, and he had gone from a 4″ tube, to 6″, and was now closing in on 8″, which he had not envisioned when he started the project. He had very tight initial parameters, was staying within the 4″ diameter. But over time, he’d gone up to now embracing 8″, and a larger horizontal bandsaw would make his life way easier. I checked out his channel to see how the rocket thing was going.

Almost immediately, I found a video entitled “A rant on personal engineering projects”. I admit that my main interest in watching was that I thought it might be funny. It’s not. It’s a very serious concept that he’s trying to convey, he’s struggling with the framework of explaining it, and it may indeed be life-altering for me. Before I post the link, let me give a very brief synopsis.

Some of my nerdy friends (Aliza, Stephan, Matt, I’m thinking of you!) would likely enjoy the whole video, but in a nutshell, he’s noting that personal engineering projects have a very different “filter” by which to analyse outcomes than if you were doing it for a company. The video gives an example of a company building a drone and that the optics engineer will optimize for quality and cost. But if the optics engineer “fails”, the company can always buy pre-made parts or contract it out or whatever — it doesn’t kill the project. So what the optics engineers focuses on is optimizing their piece. This continues through most elements of a project — everybody has a way of optimizing their piece.

Joey argues in the video though that for a personal project, it isn’t about optimizing. The only filter that matters is if what you are doing helps finish the project or not. He notes a lot of people provide comments on his video that his approach to a specific element could have been better done, he made stupid design choices, it wasn’t optimal etc…and he’s pointing out that none of those “filters” or standards apply to a personal project. The only thing that matters is if you achieve your overall objective, and thus the sub-filters are only about if it helps you do that…if you over-engineered something that was easier to build with more work, or you cut corners that made the solution less robust, or you spent $20 to build something that could be optimized for $5 if you were building 1000s, all of it is irrelevant. It’s like he’s embraced Machiavelli’s advice to “look to the end”.

Why is this potentially life-changing for ME?

I’m not saying this is or should be life-changing for everyone. In the end, it all boils down to “optimization” / filters / goals / indicators of success being about one queston:

Does it help you finish the project?

A lot of people would see this advice as existing in a lot of other forms, and lots of people suggest this in the comments. Historically, figures have said the same thing in different ways such as “Perfection is the enemy of the good” (Voltaire), the enemy of “progress” (Churchill) or the enemy of “good enough” (multiple random people). But those are not the same thing. It can be the same, i.e., if you equate with optimization with perfection, but that isn’t quite universal.

However, let’s go back to my domino situation. Five steps down my rabbit hole is a DVD collection that is sitting on shelving that could be put to better use. If I was going for perfection, I would do nothing with them until I could process them directly. If I was going for optimization, I would find a new semi-permanent home for them that would still be easily accessible and ideally on shelves, maybe in another room. Or, if necessary, I could throw them in bins until I find time to make a new home somewhere else.

But here’s the thing. If I look at Joey B’s filter, the only question is:

Of the three options
(process them in place, find a temporary accessible home, or put them in bins),
which option(s) help me complete the organizing project?

Processing them in place would theoretically LET me complete the organizing project. It would take a lot of time, I might die before it’s done, but sure, I *could* do that. But it doesn’t HELP me complete. It’s perfect, but as a barrier, not an aid.

Finding a temporary accessible home is my optimization domino chain problem. I don’t have an obvious new location/home, so I get blocked thinking of 12 other things I could do to free up space for the DVDs. Instead of finishing, I get stopped. It’s optimized, but again, it works as a barrier, not an aid.

So, let’s look at option 3. If I put them in plastic bins, right off the bat, I hate it. I don’t like things in bins. You can’t see what’s in them, you can’t find stuff in them, you have to move other things to even look, it’s a pain in the ass. It is, by definition, one of the worst storage options for my DVDs. But that’s not the filter. The sole filter is if it HELPS me finish the organizing project. And the answer is yes. I can put the DVDs in several bins, label them to give me some accessibility, and use the extra space to move some things that have to remain out (materials, some tools) into that space, thus freeing up other space. On a scale of 1 to 5, perfection would be L5, optimized would be L4, and bins would be L2, rising to L3 with some labelling and a good final storage spot.

Why does that video help?

It isn’t only about finishing projects. It also makes me ask myself about my standards for stuff. I have an almost pathological and universal side of things, where my brain wants me to optimize stuff. I don’t want to simply be the guy with his big space organized; I want to be the guy with all his DVDs optimally organized. And his video game consoles are up and running. And his two 3D printers are both doing cool builds. And his computer is set up to stream to the TV. While some mini-projects need finishing, finishing them all simultaneously or in the proper optimal order is paralyzing.

If I prioritize what I need to do NOW, which is to organize the space, then the other can be “satisficed” for shorter-term solutions.

More importantly, I have other projects where this might help. My brain is firing on all cylinders for some writing projects, including my HR Guide. For the some 30 or so chapters for my HR guide, part of my failure to complete the project is that optimization filter. For example, I wrote a mini-chapter post about becoming an Executive. I am not totally happy with the chapter…to be more precise, I don’t know if I have the right angle in explaining it, nor even the right voice overall for how I’m trying to help people. Since I’m not an EX, and thus more reporting what various EX have told me, my voice is more “passive” in tone. That post is live on the site, but for the last 2 years, it has generally sat unacknowledged. If someone searched, they would find it, but it hasn’t been in my table of contents, nor menus. You wouldn’t know it existed except through a search. In short? It wasn’t optimized to my standard and so I didn’t “share” it the way I share other content.

As I work on my new version of the guide, I want to include it. Part of my brain therefore is like, “But I don’t have that ‘solved’ yet.”. So that same part tells me that I can’t publish it. Yet I want to include it, ergo the overall project is stalled until I solve it. I can write other pieces, but I couldn’t finish. Right? (That’s rhetorical, btw. Other people’s brains don’t all have that problem.)

Equally, I have no idea what to do about the possible monetization of my guide. This is an existential question, to be frank. On the one hand, I feel like the info should be free, nobody charged me when they helped me, and I already get a salary as a manager which I feel includes helping others in the public service; on the other hand, it’s valuable, writers should get paid for writing stuff, and well, it’s a LOT of work with few natural competitors. As I do the new guide, I have ideas about possible expanded summaries, slide versions (like flash cards), ebook + web versions, maybe a videocast that people could watch more like training, and even a bunch of additional resource materials.

Do I do basic versions on the web and more detailed versions to sell? I don’t know. And since I don’t know, I feel the paralysis setting in. I feel unmotivated to push through to the end if I don’t know what I’ll do at the end. I want to complete the framework, and optimize all the bits, before I get to work. To know my path before I embark on the journey.

Yet, if I apply Joey B’s rationale (and there is a huge asterisk on its applicability that I’ll come back to), the filter should (could?) be if it helps me finish.

Optimizing the EX chapter is good for the content, BUT it doesn’t help me finish. I have a good chapter, just not perfect or optimized. So what? Using the existing version, with some minor adjustments for flow, helps me finish. So I should call it “good enough” and move on.

I may not know what I’m doing with the text when I’m done — or how many versions I’ll have and if I’ll charge for any of them — but I know that I need the full text. I need to write it. And worrying that I don’t know the “optimal” format and structure doesn’t help me finish the project.

Someone in the video comments described it as creating a “minimum viable project”. I am not sure it is exactly what I mean, but there is something there. Some talk about having a viable finished solution, and then using an iteration method after it works to make it work better/properly, improve performance, maximize efficiency, maximize reliability, and minimize costs, moving from a new product to a mature product. Trying to optimize all those pieces as you go isn’t really a good model for a personal project, which is Joey B’s argument, in a nutshell.

Are all my projects just “personal projects”?

That is a very good question, and one for which I don’t have a good answer to provide. All of the DIY stuff, sure, all personal projects. I do them for fun and learning.

Which in and of itself is interesting. Someone pointed out in one of the comments on the video that Joey B was “wrong” about the goal being finishing the project aka lots of people just do the projects for learning. Finishing is secondary. That is true, but beside the point. If your primary goal is learning, then Joey B’s argument is that you should “finish the learning”. By extrapolation, if an approach or step doesn’t help you finish your learning either by removing the learning component (if you buy pre-built components) or taking you down irrelevant rabbitholes, then you should “optimize” for finishing the learning component you need. If it doesn’t help, it’s the wrong approach.

For my writing though, my wife and I have had this debate, although it is almost universal for all writers. For your latest work-in-progress, or your first book, do you labour over it for years, trying to make it perfect before ever showing anyone? Or if you’re going to publish it, do you delay and tinker and edit and rewrite ad nauseum? Or do you get it to the best stage it can be in, and then release it like a baby bird?

I will eventually get around to doing some fiction writing, and my expectation is that I will publish it through Amazon Kindle Unlimited. Will it be the best fiction ever? Probably not. Will it win me awards? Nope. Will people read them and thus buy more in the series? I hope so. But there’s a limit to how many rounds of editing I will do. Eventually, I have to finish and ship it. I’d love to have the full mature product with my first iteration. But I won’t. I’ll have more than a minimallly viable product, I’ll make sure there’s quality. But will it be as tight as I might want it? Nope. Will it sing like whales or elves? Nope.

But if I have non-personal projects, aka things that will go out the door, how do I incorporate the new concepts?

Introducing Paul, the Project Manager

As I was watching Joey B. explain systems engineering, my brain was thinking about it more like an overall “project manager”. As a project manager, if I was managing cleaning my basement as a PM rather than the grunt doing all of it, my perspective would change.

I wouldn’t care where the DVDs go or if it is perfectly optimal. I have, say, 5 steps, and I need all 5 steps to complete with a success rate of 3/5. Will I take 4? Sure. Will I take 5? Sure. But anything above 2 is viable. My role as the project manager is to make the project finish, and if I have 5 steps x 3 ratings, I’m green. But that goes a step further.

If I, as a project manager, was talking to me, a shelf cleaner for the DVD area, what would that conversation look like? Cleaner-me would explain that I have a perfect solution that will never finish, an optimal solution that is impractical and unfinished thus not letting me move forward, and a functional solution that sucks, BUT lets the project finish. PM-me would tell them, “Hey, dude, relax, that’s good enough. Watch Frozen and let it go. Don’t stress yourself out. We’ll add a future project where we find a good way to deal with the DVDs, but for now, this is not only good enough, it’s a great solution that helps us complete THIS project.“

I’ve got several projects that I can think of where “worker-me” would say to “project-manager-me”, “Hey, so this isn’t a great solution, I don’t like it, it’s not ‘optimal’, but well, it’s functional, and it would let the overall project continue.” PM-me would respond with praise, and move on.

It’s a bit of a hack to say, as I did above, “Sure, let’s put optimization-of-DVD collection on a future list”, but it’s closer to reality. And maybe that is what I feel like is different.

My desire for an overall framework sees projects in all these different areas as an ADHD-driven desire for self-optimization in my efforts everywhere. But what I should be doing is isolating them into concrete smaller frameworks to say, “Okay, how do I optimize THIS project for COMPLETION, not optomized for inputs/outputs at all stages.” If later I want to take a piece and optimize it to maturity, well, that’s another project. I shouldn’t solve it now. I just need to optimize for completion with reasonable acceptable quality. After all, I’m not doing it just to do it. There is an improvement standard that whatever I’m doing makes a difference in my life.

But using a the different goal as my revised standard? That may, indeed, be life-changing.