why we finish what we are forced to do but abandon what we choose to learn
We accidentally designed a world where we are more accountable to strangers than to ourselves.
I'll work nights on difficult projects my boss assigns, but I can't finish books I buy enthusiastically for myself. This bothered me for a while because it didn't make logical sense.
Then I noticed this pattern everywhere. I abandon online courses after a few lessons. I start side projects with excitement but quit when things get slightly difficult. I read articles and think "this is great, I should implement this" but never do.
Meanwhile, I complete challenging work projects that are arguably harder than reading a book. I take ownership, push through obstacles, work late. The difference probably is not the difficulty level. Some of those abandoned books are easier than the complex projects I finish at work.
The difference is who holds me accountable. It's about who sets the standard. We accidentally designed a world where we are more accountable to strangers than to ourselves.
External accountability works because it removes the burden of self-judgment. When my boss or org assigns a project, success and failure are clearly defined by someone else. I focus on execution, not on whether I’m "doing it right" or getting "maximum value." When the project fails, I haven't failed personally. The project failed, or priorities changed, or resources were insufficient.
But the interesting part is that with personal learning, it carries a different psychological weight. I become both the student and the teacher, the worker and the boss. Every abandoned book feels like a personal failure of discipline or intelligence. I'm accountable only to myself. And apparently, I'm terrible at being my own boss.
When there's no external consequence for quitting, quitting becomes the easiest path. Plus I'm constantly having this meta-conversation: Is this the right book? Should I read some other book and return to this later? So we protect ourselves by setting impossibly high standards that justify quitting ("I must take detailed notes and implement everything immediately").
The cost of this pattern compounds over time. While I excel at other people's priorities, I systematically underinvest in my own development. There are negotiation skills I never learned, the programming language I never finished, the domain expertise I never built. These represent the difference between who I am and who I could become.
Perhaps the solution isn't willpower or better time management. It’s more about designing external accountability for internal goals.
Here's what I'm trying: I share with my wife any learning goal I set and ask her to check my progress. She doesn't need to give advice. Just having to share progress creates external accountability. Turning private learning into social obligation.
I'm also reframing completion. Maybe I don't need to finish every single thing? Extract useful insights and move on.
I'm also trying to separate exploration from commitment. Not every learning experiment needs to become life-changing. Some books can just be... fine.
I'm basically trying to trick my brain into treating personal development like a work project. External expectations and regular check-ins.
The irony is that I already possess the psychological machinery for all these. But I apply it exclusively to external demands. I'm great at being employee-me but terrible at being CEO-me. Once I redirect that machinery toward my own growth, abandoned learning projects become completed skills, and half-read books can become applied knowledge.
At least that's the theory. We will see if it actually works.