MModern Wisdom
← All frameworks
Productivity

Contemplate The Price Of Inaction

Doing nothing is still a choice with a compounding cost

Difficulty
Easy
Time to result
~days to results
Steps
4
Confidence
68%

Built from Jordan Peterson, Alex Hormozi and Gwinda Bogle, this decision rule attacks the assumption that inaction is neutral. Peterson warns you are blind to the price of inaction, yet it compounds as anxiety cost while you loop through the undone task in your mind, gaining nothing in the real world. Bogle adds that a problem postponed is a problem extended. Hormozi supplies the test: it does not take time to make decisions, it takes information; if you already have the information, waiting only postpones. If evidence supports the decision and fear remains, that is fear of the unknown, not logic. The rule injects urgency by making the cost of doing nothing visible.

Origin

Chris Williamson wove together Jordan Peterson's 'contemplate the price you pay for inaction', Gwinda Bogle's 'a problem postponed is a problem extended', and Alex Hormozi's 'decisions take information, not time'.

Core principles

  • 01Inaction is not an impartial strategy; it has a real, hidden price.
  • 02A problem postponed is a problem extended.
  • 03Decisions require information, not time.
  • 04Waiting rarely supplies the information a decision actually needs.
  • 05Persistent fear despite sufficient evidence is fear of the unknown, not logic.

How to run it

  1. 1

    Surface the postponed decision

    Name the difficult decision, conversation or task you keep pushing off, such as changing jobs or an awkward conversation.

  2. 2

    Price the inaction

    Make explicit the compounding anxiety cost and problem-extension you incur by continuing to wait.

    Pro tip Remember that thought-looping in your mind moves nothing forward in reality.

    Watch out Assuming inaction is impartial keeps you in a liminal purgatory.

  3. 3

    Test for information gain

    Ask whether the waiting is actually producing new information relevant to the decision, or just deferring it.

  4. 4

    Decide on sufficient information

    If you already hold the information the decision needs, make it now rather than belabouring it.

    Pro tip Set a deadline so Parkinson's law doesn't stretch the decision indefinitely.

    Watch out If fear persists despite adequate evidence, recognise it as fear of the unknown, not a rational objection.

In the wild

The deferred career move

Someone sits on a job change for months, telling themselves waiting is neutral. Applying the rule, they see the anxiety cost stacking with every hour of mental looping, confirm that waiting has added no new information, and recognise the remaining hesitation as fear of the hypothetical. They decide.

→ A long-stalled decision gets made once its true cost of delay is visible.

Common mistakes

Mistaking inaction for neutrality

Believing that not deciding keeps the situation impartial ignores the compounding anxiety and extension cost.

Waiting for time instead of information

Belabouring a decision without gathering new information just postpones it under the guise of diligence.

Is it for you?

Best for

Anyone stuck endlessly deferring a difficult decision or conversation.

Not ideal for

Decisions genuinely blocked on information you can still go and gather.

From the episode

16 Lessons From 2022 - Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson & Jocko Willink - #565

→