In a society where everything needs to be optimal, randomness is seen as a mistake.

Societies that promote experimentation will - in the long run - become superior.

Because: The interesting things that give you leverage are at the frontier of knowledge. In business, as well as, in science.

And that’s the tragedy. It should be viewed as a feature, not the bug. Curiosity and willingness to mix it up is where the serious innovation resides. Cross cutting concepts more easily happen when you’ve done/experienced/seen/felt different stuff … period.

I tell my son all the time that I couldn’t predict what I’m doing now … 3 years prior. I didn’t have this insight or awareness but after running the SW/IT marathon for 25 years here we are. Trust your instincts, they weren’t developed in a vacuum. The more you explore, the more insights pop in your mind and every 3 years or so, a change presents itself for you to affirm or deny.

Yeah and even if you’re totally uninterested in “having an interesting life” and just want to maximize income/job prospects, I think you can make the argument that a little bit of randomness is actually the optimal path because it increases your luck surface area.

For example - working in a well-rated fine dining restaurant over a summer while you’re studying computer science seems totally unrelated and not optimal. But maybe that unique experience is what stands out on your resume, and maybe the knowledge about wine or food you acquired there builds a connection with an investor or manager, years down the line.

Optimal by whose criterion?