Old problems and new problems
When revisiting old problems can give more than chasing new ones
If we were given infinite time, we could find the best solution for a problem. However, since we do not have infinite time, the best we can do is choose the solution that we think is most suitable and proceed with it.
If it is a one-way decision that is costly to reverse, then it is best to invest time and effort upfront in picking the best option.
If it is a two-way decision, which is reversible, then there is no need to spend a lot of time picking the solution. But despite being reversible, we often treat two-way decisions as one-way decisions, rarely revisiting alternatives—even when we should.
One reason is because we like new problems more than old problems. New problems are fresh, shiny, and feel more urgent.
It also feels like resolving old problems brings less value than solving new problems. We feel like it is a waste of time when we resolve an old problem and it gets worse. But even if it gets better, we feel like the improvement is so little compared to the amount of satisfaction we feel when solving new problems, which is not only an increase from being good to being better but also a transition from nothing to something tangible—from the unsolved to solved.
Despite being shiny, new problems have a big problem: It is impossible to know in advance if they will pay off well. The total payoff of solving a problem can be calculated as:
total payoff = frequency of solution application (the quantity) × impact peruse (the quality)
Although it is possible to guess the impact peruse, it is impossible to predict how many times we are going to use it. On the other hand, we know how many times we used the solution for an old problem. So, while we cannot calculate the exact payoff of solving a new problem, we can calculate and know how much value it brings when improving an old problem. So when it comes to picking what problems to solve/re-solve that can bring us the most payoff, it is safer to choose to improve old problems. Solving new problems sure can still be worth it (especially when you run out of high-payoff old problems), but it will be more risky because the payoff is unknown.
It is also easier to improve an old solution than to pick a new solution for a new problem, as we already know how these applied solutions work, how they interact with the problems, where they excel and where they fall short.
Old problems are especially worth revisiting when you do not have problems to solve. What we usually lack is not the resources to solve problems, but the problems worth solving. When you lack problems, instead of finding new ones that you know little about, it is a lot easier to just come back to improve those you already know are useful to you.
A solution rarely can forever be a fit for a problem because of many reasons:
- The solution no longer satisfies the problem because the problem evolves
- The solution still works fine, but our demands grow
- Only when we use that solution for a while do we see the areas it does not satisfy us
Revisiting old problems also opens doors to new discoveries, so what we get from revisiting will usually be much more than our expectations. This means that the trade-off will also be higher than expected, but do not be afraid of having more things to solve because, again, what we lack are quality problems, not the ability to handle them.
But knowing how good old problems are isn't enough to make us revisit them as much as we should. Another reason we do not revisit them enough is that we forget to. Humans are just bad at remembering non-recent things.
To remember, they need to be retrievable, which means we need to store them somewhere. The best way would be writing. Problems in themselves are complex, and only text can store all the thoughts and ideas you had when you encountered the problem. You can store them in a problem journal by recording every situation you encounter, which helps your future self to revisit these problems when you are more capable.
But sometimes, even text cannot capture everything about a problem. Another way is to revisit them at the end of your day, when they are old enough for you to reflect on, but not too old that you forget them. When you are no longer being bonded to the responsibilities of the day, you can stop thinking about how to solve a problem fast and instead think about how to solve it well. Since we revisit those problems when they are not yet old, the only con of this method is that we can not be sure if these problems will still be important in the long term.
Rereading books is also a good way to remind ourselves of old problems. Because we read books that interest us, we can think of our reading portfolio as the list containing all the issues we are interested in. What's even better than rereading old books is to reread good old books. Great books are not those that raise great answers, but those that raise great questions. A book is great as long as it can raise significant problems and show us how important these problems are in ways that we were not able to see ourselves.
But of course, we shouldn't always choose old problems over new problems. For example, it's when we keep improving old issues as an excuse not to face the new problems, which are harder, more uncertain, but also necessary.
Both new and old problems have their place. Despite being uncertain, new problems are interesting and worth investing in, as they can bring astounding changes. Other times, it is safer to choose to improve old things. Instead of treating old problems as "those that we solved and will never revisit again," it is better to think about them as "those that we once solved but still require maintenance/improvements."
There are always problems that are more important than others at each particular point in our lives. Our job is to keep reassessing which one should be your focus at the moment. Continuous re-assessments may take time, but they are definitely worth it.