-
サマリー
あらすじ・解説
We’ve all heard the phrase, “the end justifies the means.” But in this episode of The Gentle Rebel Podcast, I want to turn it inside out and explore this idea from another angle. What if, for some people, focusing solely on the outcome as the ultimate goal can lead to a dissatisfying and alienating approach to life? This question struck me as I emerged from a week-long rabbit hole. In the previous episode, I talked about unexpectedly diving into research about a self-help influencer and the questionable details surrounding their latest book. At first glance, it might have seemed like a distraction—a detour from what I “should” have been doing. When I sense myself going off the deep end, it’s almost like slow motion. I can feel it happening but there's not much I can do to stop it. Once something stirs inside me at a deep level. So, despite my logical brain yelling, “Andy, no! You don’t have time for this. Stop. Close that webpage. Put your phone away!” I find myself slipping into the rabbit hole anyway. “OK", rational brain continues. "See you in a week or so? Remember to eat! Bye.” The Path is The Inspiration This has happened many times over the years. There’s often a nagging voice of judgment, telling me it’s a waste of time, that I’m being pulled in a million directions. But recently, I’ve noticed a shift. Over the past two or three years, I’ve started to see these moments differently. Instead of dismissing them as irrelevant distractions, I’ve begun to ask new questions that help me stay focused. It’s partly about mindset and my relationship with the subject, but it’s also about the spirit I bring into the rabbit hole. And that’s where the idea of “the means justify the end” emerges. For me, it’s about trusting the process. I don’t always know where I’ll end up, but I know it will be okay because of how I choose to travel there. Experimental vs. Conceptual Approaches This reminds me of economist David Galenson’s research on creativity, which I first encountered through my friend Kendra Patterson. She highlighted the distinction between experimental and conceptual innovators in a podcast about late bloomers. As William Landay writes in his article Experimental Writers vs. Conceptual Writers:“Experimental innovators are seekers. They’re characterized by persistent uncertainty about their methods and goals. They’re often dissatisfied with their current work but have only vague ideas about how to improve it. This dissatisfaction drives them to experiment, moving tentatively toward imperfectly perceived objectives. No matter how much progress they make, they rarely consider their work a complete success. In contrast, conceptual innovators are finders. They’re marked by certainty about their methods, goals, or both. This clarity allows them to work methodically toward their objectives, often feeling they’ve fully realized their vision in a particular work.” For conceptual innovators, the end justifies the means. But for experimental innovators, the means justify the end. It’s more about the journey than the destination. The process itself brings the “end” into focus, even if it doesn’t feel complete. It’s a waypoint on a road to nowhere, anywhere, and everywhere. Are You an Experimental Type? When I first heard about this distinction at the end of 2020, it sparked something in me. I recognised myself in the descriptions of experimental creativity. My projects never turn out as I expect them to, and I feel restricted by SMART goals or rigid outcomes that demand a fixed course of action. Around the same time, I created The Return to Serenity Island, a project that became a way for me to creatively process this discovery and reshape my relationship with goal setting and personal growth. It was a departure from the “start with the end in mind” paradigm I’d been taught in coaching courses—an approach that assumes you’ll drift, waste time,