Mark: Most self-help tells you to find your 'why.' Today, we're exploring a book from a Stanford design guru who says your 'why' is probably bullshit. In fact, he argues that all our reasons are just pretty excuses holding us back from a life of achievement. Michelle: Whoa, okay. Starting with a punch. I like it. That’s a bold claim. Who’s throwing down this gauntlet? Mark: And that provocative idea comes from Bernard Roth's book, The Achievement Habit. Michelle: Bernard Roth... he's not your typical self-help author, is he? I read he's a robotics pioneer from Stanford. What's an engineering professor doing writing about habits? Mark: Exactly! That's what makes this book so unique. He co-founded Stanford's famous d.school and applies design thinking—the same principles used to build robots and innovative products—to redesigning your life. It’s engineering for your own success. Michelle: So it's less about affirmations and more about algorithms for your life? Mark: You could say that. He sees life as a series of design problems to be solved. And that engineering mindset starts with a fundamental principle he teaches: Nothing is what you think it is.

Michelle: Okay, "Nothing is what you think it is." That sounds like something out of The Matrix. It feels a little abstract. What does that actually mean in practice? Mark: It means that the meaning we give to events, people, and especially our failures, isn't inherent. We assign it. And because we assign it, we can change it. He tells this incredible story about a graduate student of his named Mike. Michelle: I'm ready. Give me the story. Mark: So, Mike is in one of Roth's design classes and for his big project, he decides to build a musical instrument for the Burning Man festival. But not just any instrument. He wants to build a wearable pipe organ powered by a fire-powered boiler. Michelle: A fire-powered wearable pipe organ. That sounds... ambitious. And slightly dangerous. Mark: Extremely. Roth is skeptical but agrees to supervise. The semester goes by, and Mike's progress is slow, sporadic. He keeps missing meetings. Finally, the big day comes at Burning Man. Mike demos his creation, and it's a complete, unmitigated disaster. It doesn't work, it's embarrassing, and Roth is just mortified for him. He basically writes Mike off as a talented but flaky guy who can't deliver. Michelle: Oh, that's rough. I can feel the second-hand cringe. So Mike is a failure, case closed. Mark: That's what Roth thought. But here's the twist. Three years later, Roth is back at Burning Man and he sees this breathtaking, massive fire-breathing serpent sculpture called the Serpent Mother. It's this incredible feat of engineering and art. He goes to find out who built it, and who does he find leading the whole operation? Michelle: No. It can't be. Mark: It's Mike. The "failure." He'd become a core member of the art collective, a leader, and was creating these world-renowned pieces. And Roth has this epiphany. His judgment of Mike, that "failure," was just a story he told himself. It wasn't the truth. The failure had no permanent meaning. Mike had completely reinvented himself. Michelle: Wow. Okay, that's a powerful story. It really lands the idea that we shouldn't let one moment define someone. But what about things that feel more objective? Like, a failed exam is still a failed exam, right? How does reframing that actually help? Mark: Roth has a story for that too, from his own life. He talks about being in fourth grade and a teacher telling him that any misbehavior would go on his "permanent record card." He was terrified of this mythical card. Michelle: I think we all had a version of that! The all-powerful, life-ruining permanent record. Mark: Exactly. Then later, in graduate school, he gets an F in an advanced physics course taught by a Nobel Prize winner. He's devastated. He thinks his career is over. This F will follow him forever. Michelle: That feels like a legitimate fear. An F in a PhD program is a big deal. Mark: It feels like it. But he realized years later that neither of those things—the imaginary permanent record nor the very real F—had any lasting negative impact on his life. He was the only one keeping score. The only one holding onto the meaning of that "failure." He argues that we give everything its meaning, and we can choose to let it go and move on. Michelle: So the "permanent record" is only in our own heads. That's both liberating and a little bit terrifying. It puts all the responsibility back on you. Mark: It does. And that's the perfect lead-in to his next, and most controversial, idea. Because if you're the one assigning meaning, you're also the one responsible for your actions. And that's where he gets really blunt.

Michelle: Okay, I'm starting to see how we assign meaning. But it's one thing to reframe the past. It's another to act in the present. And this brings us to that chapter title you mentioned, "Reasons Are Bullshit," which I have to admit, feels a little aggressive. Mark: It's intentionally provocative. And it's the core of the book's action principle. Roth's argument is that the reasons we give for not doing something are almost always just well-dressed excuses. They're stories we tell ourselves to feel better about not acting. Michelle: I can already feel people getting defensive. What about legitimate reasons? Mark: He uses his own life as the prime example. For months, he was consistently late to the board meetings of a company he was involved with. It was an hour's drive, and every time he'd show up late, flustered, and say, "Sorry, the traffic on 880 was just a nightmare." Michelle: Oh, I have 100% used the "traffic was crazy" excuse. It's the get-out-of-jail-free card for being late. Mark: We all have! But one day, he stopped and asked himself honestly: was traffic really the reason? Or was it that he wasn't making the meeting a high enough priority? He'd try to squeeze in one last email, take one last phone call, and leave at the last possible second. The "reason"—traffic—was just a convenient scapegoat for his own lack of prioritization. Michelle: That's a tough pill to swallow. He's saying the problem wasn't the traffic, it was his choice. Mark: Precisely. Once he admitted that to himself, the problem vanished. He started treating the meeting like a flight he had to catch. He left with plenty of time, and he was never late again. He says that if the consequence of being late was severe enough—say, you'd be fired on the spot—you'd find a way to be on time, flat tire or not. Your reason is just an indicator of what you're not prioritizing. Michelle: Okay, but what about things you genuinely can't control? A real family emergency, for instance. Mark: Of course, he's not a monster. He acknowledges real external obstacles exist. But his point is that 99% of the time, our reasons are just masking a choice. And this is where he introduces another key distinction: the difference between "trying" and "doing." Michelle: I've heard this before, but it always feels a bit semantic. What's the real difference? Mark: He demonstrates it with a physical exercise. He'll ask a volunteer to "try" to take a water bottle from his hand. The volunteer usually struggles, uses force, and it becomes a contest of strength. Then he says, "Okay, now just take the bottle." And with that shift in intention, the volunteer just... takes it. Often with less force, but with more commitment. Michelle: That's fascinating. So 'trying' is like button-mashing in a video game, hoping something works, but 'doing' is a targeted, intentional move. Mark: Perfect analogy. He says when you try, you're using force. When you do, you're using power. Trying allows for the possibility of failure. Doing presupposes success. It's a mindset shift from "I'll give it a shot" to "I am going to make this happen." The reasons and excuses melt away when you commit to doing. Michelle: I like that. It's about committing to the outcome, not just the attempt. But this all sounds very individualistic. Like you have to power through everything on your own. Mark: And that's the common misconception. Once you've sorted your own mindset and your own actions, you still have to deal with the world. And sometimes, you just get stuck. That's where the third piece of the puzzle comes in.

Mark: That idea of intention is the perfect bridge to the final piece. Because even with the best mindset, you'll hit a wall. You'll face a problem you just can't solve on your own. Michelle: Which is when most of us either give up or just try to brute-force our way through it. Mark: Exactly. And Roth says that's when you need to stop and ask if you're even solving the right problem. He tells this fantastic, simple story about a student named Krishna. Krishna's project for the class was to fix something that bothered him, and he chose his broken bed. The frame was busted, and he wasn't getting a good night's sleep. Michelle: Seems straightforward enough. Fix the bed. Mark: You'd think. But for three weeks, Krishna was stuck. Week one, he couldn't find the right kind of wire. Week two, he didn't have the right tools. Week three, he couldn't find the specific springs he needed. He was completely bogged down in the "how" of fixing the bed. Michelle: I know this feeling. The endless, frustrating search for that one specific part or piece of information. Mark: Right. Finally, the instructor gets fed up and tells him he'll fail if he doesn't solve the problem. So Krishna, under pressure, finally stops and reframes the question. The problem wasn't "How do I fix this bed?" The real problem was "How do I get a good night's sleep?" Michelle: Oh! That is brilliant. He was solving the wrong problem! Mark: The moment he asked the right question, the solution was obvious. He went out and bought a new bed. Problem solved. Instantly. Michelle: That's such a great example of getting stuck on the solution instead of the problem. We do that all the time. We think we need a better hammer, when what we really need is to get the nail in the wall. Mark: And this is where the collaborative part comes in. Sometimes you're too close to the problem to see the reframe. That's when you need to find assistance. But Roth is very specific about this. He's not a fan of what we typically call "networking." Michelle: What's his issue with networking? It's supposed to be the key to everything. Mark: He sees it as transactional and often inauthentic. You're trying to get something from someone. Instead, he advocates for building genuine relationships and being open to learning from everyone. He tells a story about his colleague Tom, who taught him a simple but profound lesson: "We don't have enough time to hurry." Rushing leads to mistakes that take more time to fix. Michelle: That's wisdom you get from a real connection, not from a five-minute chat at a conference. So it's not about collecting contacts, it's about being open to wisdom from anywhere, and being a decent human being so people want to help you. Mark: Exactly. It's about being the kind of person who gives and receives help authentically. It's about being part of a team, even if that "team" is just your circle of friends and colleagues. When you combine that with the right mindset and a bias for action, you create a system for achievement.

Michelle: So when you put it all together, it's like a three-step operating system for achievement. First, you debug your own reality and realize you're in control of the meaning. You decide what "failure" means. Mark: Right. You stop letting your past define your future. Michelle: Second, you cut the excuses and just do. You stop giving reasons and start prioritizing, shifting from "trying" to intentional action. Mark: The action principle. Michelle: And third, when you get stuck, you reframe the problem and build real connections to help you solve it. You don't go it alone. Mark: Exactly. And the big picture Roth paints is that achievement isn't a personality trait you're born with. It's a design problem. And like any good designer, you can prototype your way to a better life. You don't need a grand plan. You just need to start, learn from what happens, and iterate. That's the habit. Michelle: I love that. It makes it so much less intimidating. It's not about becoming a superhero overnight. It's about running small, personal experiments. So for everyone listening, maybe the one thing to try this week is that language hack you mentioned. Mark: The "have to" versus "want to" exercise. Michelle: Yeah. Every time you catch yourself saying "I have to do the laundry" or "I have to go to this meeting," just mentally change it to "I want to do the laundry" or "I want to go to this meeting." Mark: And then ask yourself why you want to. I want clean clothes. I want to keep my job. It reminds you that you're making a choice. Michelle: A perfect first prototype. It's a small change, but it feels like it could shift your whole perspective from being a victim of your circumstances to being the designer of your life. Mark: That's the whole idea. Let us know how it goes. We'd love to hear your experiences. Michelle: This is Aibrary, signing off.