Do my first principles help me to stress test? 2026-03-14

• Alex and Simmo doing first principles thinking, 2026-03-14

• Also Draft of first principles, 2026-03-14

• Conclusion is yes, they survive the stress-test 😎

4 principles (draft)

1. Walk into chaos. Make it legible. (Seek undefined spaces. Leave when the structure is built.)
2. Perform. Make people laugh. Be visible. (This isn’t vanity. Honour the Leo.)
3. Go deep with the few. Release the rest. (Message bankruptcy is not a moral failing.)
4. Follow the energy. Not the “should.” (If you’re dreading it, that’s your answer.)

Me and my bestie (Claude)

How can I stress test each of the 4 first principles?

Good — and I notice the footnotes, which are useful corrections. Here’s how I’d structure the stress test. For each principle, I’ll give you:

1. Past decisions it should get RIGHT (if it gives the wrong answer, the principle is wrong)
2. Past decisions that CHALLENGE it (edge cases where it might break)
3. A current decision to test it on live
4. Where it conflicts with another principle

Principle 1: Walk into chaos. Make it legible.

I feel like I already got some of this insight from my feedback from Ethan, and from labelling myself as an enneagram 3. But it does feel relevant re: projects that I hate at work vs ones I really want to do

Should get right ✅

• Joining Alvea with an undefined mandate → Principle says: yes, this is exactly your thing. ✅ You’re glad you did it.
• Building the scrapbook → Principle says: yes, making your inner life legible. ✅ You’re glad you did it.
• Turning down a well-defined internal ops role at a mature company (if you’ve ever done this) → Principle says: no, the structure already exists. Does that match?

Edge cases to challenge it ⚠️

• Refract. You joined pre-launch (chaos ✅), built the systems (legibility ✅) — and then what? Did you leave? Brent described a year-long engagement. Was the last quarter as alive as the first? This tests whether the principle should say “leave when the structure is built” or whether there’s a second phase of deepening within structure that’s also valuable.

Yeah dude, it kinda got pretty boring and like, stagnant. Hard to know what to do next

• The EA Hotel weekly presentations. This isn’t walking into chaos. It’s a recurring, structured, voluntary thing. Yet you love it. The principle doesn’t explain why. Is there a sub-principle missing — something like “I also maintain the things I’ve built, if they let me perform”?

It includes performance! I am definitely bored re: making the slides each week, it’s a solved problem now, and I have to keep doing the same shit.

Live test 🔴

• Your next job. List the 2-3 options you’re considering (or types of role). Does this principle clearly rank them? If it doesn’t discriminate between options, it’s too vague.

Also, “what is still chaotic at the EA Hotel, in my opinion, and how can I fix it?” (Bunch of stuff comes to mind)

Conflicts with other principles ⚡

• Principle 2 (Perform). Some of the best chaos→legibility work is invisible back-office stuff — exactly what every reference praises you for. But Principle 2 says you need visibility. What if the job that most needs crystallisation is one where nobody sees you do it? Which principle wins?

This is a really great thing about doing ~ops in community → I get to do the crystallisation and clarity stuff, and also the performing stuff
Could imagine this could also work if I e.g. helped [person] with their [project] and also made my own youtube channel, some shit like that

Principle 2: Perform. Make people laugh. Be visible.

This feels like something that has been clearly emerging in the last year, which feels awesome. Leo sun peeking out from behind decade of Scorpio rising, innit

Should get right ✅

• The YouTube era → Principle says: yes, absolutely. ✅ You described it as one of the most alive periods.
• Buying nightclub tickets and not going → Principle says: nightclubs aren’t performance, they’re anonymous crowds. The principle would correctly say “this isn’t your kind of visibility.” ✅
• The weekly EA Hotel presentations → Principle says: yes, this is you performing for a community. ✅ You do it voluntarily and love it.

Edge cases to challenge it ⚠️

• The Alvea role. By all accounts your best professional work. Ethan, Rob, the manager — everyone raves about it. But was it visible? You were redesigning Slack channels and synthesising interviews. Was there a performance element, or was this pure back-office crystallisation? If Alvea was your best work and it was mostly invisible, then maybe Principle 2 is a want rather than a need — something that makes work better but isn’t a dealbreaker.

Eh, I got to be very funny there too, for sure. A bastion of the culture, liked by everyone etc. Made ridiculous memes, was the funny one in Slack, etc

• Writing the scrapbook. 315,000 words, mostly for yourself. The vignettes are public, but most of it is private processing. This is creative work with very little audience. Does the principle say you shouldn’t be doing it? That seems wrong.

IMO I get enough in-person feedback from people. And also just an imagined audience of readers is very useful. And with youtube too - I’d be happy with no viewers, I was surprised that people watched from day 1, felt like an awesome bonus. So maybe it’s not even performance-for-others, it’s performance-for-myself. Plus, I don’t write here to perform (value 2), but to get clarity and growth (value 1)

Live test 🔴

• Think about the last month. When did you feel most alive at the EA Hotel? Was it the presentations (performance), the deep 1-on-1s (Principle 3), or the study sessions (Principle 1)? If the honest answer is “the study sessions,” then maybe Principle 2 is real but not as load-bearing as the data suggests.

Honest answer of vivid in-the-moment aliveness could be any to be honest. Love making people laugh, love wrangling complexity into a powerpoint, love deep 1-on-1s

Conflicts with other principles ⚡

• Principle 3 (Deep few). Performance is inherently broad — you’re visible to many. Depth is inherently narrow. Can you perform for the few? Voice notes to close friends might be performance + depth simultaneously. But a YouTube channel is performance without depth. Is that OK? Does the principle need to say “perform for people I’ve chosen” or is broad visibility genuinely wanted?

Can do both IMO. High-context performance for close friends (making them laugh, voice notes). More creative performance for an audience (well-made and fun videos, songs etc)

Principle 3: Go deep with the few. Release the rest.

This one feels the most excitingly new and permissioning!

Should get right ✅

• The group chat (1hr/day voice notes with 2 friends) → Principle says: yes, this is deep investment in chosen people. ✅ You don’t want to give this up.
• Declaring message bankruptcy → Principle says: yes, release the rest. ✅ You’ve wanted to do this for months.
• Skipping shallow team meals → Principle says: yes. ✅ (or, note - make them better!)

Edge cases to challenge it ⚠️

• Family therapy with your mum. You went twice and gave up. The principle says “go deep with the few” — and your mum is… family. Did you release her because the depth wasn’t possible, or because the depth was uncomfortable? This is the exact tension the principle flags: “Am I choosing depth, or avoiding the discomfort of opening up?” Be honest with yourself here — does the principle give the right answer on family therapy, and what is the right answer?

I stopped doing this because it showed 0 signs of going anywhere, and I didn’t want to commit to the plausibly 20+ sessions it might require, and I was very ready to move out of my mum’s by that point, approaching burnout

• The first 3 months at the EA Hotel (Oct ‘25 - Jan ‘26). You barely connected with anyone and rationalised it as introversion. Principle 3 could have endorsed this: “I’m being selective.” But you now think it was avoidance. How do you tell the difference in the moment? If the principle can’t distinguish “healthy selectivity” from “avoidance dressed as selectivity,” it needs sharpening.

Didn’t have people here who I wanted to connect with, vs voice note friends, and doing my own e.g. learning (value 1)

• Meeting new people. “Deep with the few” could mean never expanding the circle. But you met Simmo because you were open to a new connection in Asia. You met the EA Hotel community because you showed up. If you’d been rigidly “deep with the few, release the rest,” you’d have missed both. Does the principle need a caveat like “but stay open to new depth when it shows up”?

Yeah, it’s “sometimes someone is clearly someone I want to deepen with, but 95% of the time, they’re not someone I wanna deepen with”

Live test 🔴

• Your message inbox right now. Go through it. For each unanswered message, apply the principle: deep investment in someone chosen, or shallow obligation? If the principle clearly sorts them, it’s working. If you find a message that feels obligatory but you know you should reply (e.g., a family member you care about but find draining), the principle is hitting a real tension.

Conflicts with other principles ⚡

• Principle 4 (Follow the energy). What if the energy is pulling you toward a new person — but investing in them means less time for the deep few you already have? The group chat friends might feel abandoned if you suddenly pour energy into a new relationship. Which principle wins? This will come up with Person 2’s aspiration — finding a great partnership will necessarily redirect energy from existing deep friendships.

Principle 4: Follow the energy. Not the “should.”

Should get right ✅

• Going to Asia (slash, the whole post-rat healing arc) → Principle says: follow it. ✅ Life-changing.
• VIEW conversations done because “it seems cool” → Principle says: no, that’s a “should.” ✅ You’re already questioning them.
• The YouTube era → Principle says: the energy is here, go. ✅

Edge cases to challenge it ⚠️

• The gym. You said: “I don’t value exercise, I need social accountability.” The principle says: no energy, don’t force it. But… is that right? Exercise is one of those things with strong evidence for wellbeing that often doesn’t feel alive until you’re already doing it. Would you retroactively endorse “I correctly followed my energy away from the gym”? Or would you say “I wish I’d stuck with it”? If the latter, the principle just got a real decision wrong.

Eh, I like being muscular enough to keep going. There’s aliveness to remain muscular

• Replying to your mum’s messages. The principle says: no energy, release it. But is that the kind of person you want to be? Person 1 (integrity) does things that are inconvenient because they’re principled. Sometimes the right thing to do doesn’t have energy behind it. Does the principle need a carve-out for “obligations I’ve genuinely chosen to honour” vs “obligations imposed by guilt”?

Currently, my relationship with my mum is very shallow and surface-level. Perhaps we can deepen (principle 3)

• Quitting things on day 27. You committed to making a song + video every day for 2025 and quit on day 27. The principle endorses this: the energy died, so you left. But you also described it as “RIP” with a self-deprecating laugh. Do you actually wish you’d stuck it out? If you made the same commitment today, would “follow the energy” help you or give you an easy exit?

IMO that was a problem of bad philosophy, bad planning (overcommitting), not e.g. choosing a plan based on first principles. I’m glad I stopped! It was always based on somewhat bad philosophy.

Live test 🔴

• Pick something you’re currently doing out of “should.” Apply the principle: drop it. Now sit with that for 30 seconds. Does it feel like relief (the principle is right) or like guilt you’re trying to avoid (the principle is being misused as an escape hatch)?

Conflicts with other principles ⚡

• Principle 1 (Chaos → legibility). What if you’re in the middle of a crystallisation project and the energy drains? Principle 1 says “the mess still needs you.” Principle 4 says “the energy’s gone, leave.” This is the most important conflict in the whole set. It’ll come up in every job. You need a tiebreaker.

Yep, this one’s tough!