Analysis Paralysis Is No Way to Live

In a world of NYT nerds, be a Napoleon.

By guest contributor First World Refugee.

Since its genesis in 2019, the regimen known as 75 Hard has made its rounds in the fitness, motivation, and self-improvement spheres on the various social media platforms, gaining a large following. The concept is straightforward: a few simple, if difficult, rules to instill some discipline in your life.

The New York Times is deathly afraid of the “gallon-of-water-and-2-x-45-minute-workouts-to-neo-Nazi” pipeline.

In the face of this absolutely INSANE, daunting challenge that asks you to work out for an hour and a half each day, the New York Times’s Lola Fadulu and her coterie of experts want to pump the brakes a bit:

Sound like a lot? It’s supposed to be. The program, called 75 Hard, is meant to build mental toughness. Some say that rigidity is what makes it great, and others say that makes it problematic…

But is it beneficial, and are the changes sustainable? Psychologists say that while the program can have mental-health benefits, certain vulnerable groups may be pushing themselves too far without benefit. Exercise experts also say the regimen could be too taxing for those who aren’t young and active already, and could lead to physical injury…

[T]he program altogether called for 630 minutes of exercise each week — that’s more than four times the amount recommended by federal officials, which is 150 minutes of “moderate-intensity physical activity” and two days of strength training.

There are also concerns about the mental health ramifications of such a no-exceptions program.

Look out! Federal officials say you’re working out too much! I think after getting ridiculed for hard-hitting journalism on “The White Supremacist Origins of Exercise” and “Fascist Fitness,” media NPCs have updated their software to the more sober tone from the Times here, raising faux-concerns about the health risks of a hardcore fitness routine. Less hysterics, and more critical analysis by experts stroking their chins and soberly assessing the data.

From reading the article, you’d think that 75 Hard is something potentially dangerous — which I suppose if you want people to be weak, pliable, and undisciplined, then it is. In reality, it’s just a trendy social media phenomenon, inspiring people to make the mildest of attempts at taking control of their lives. The New York Times meanwhile dutifully caveats 75 Hard with certified experts’ advice, for fear that someone may attempt the challenge and experience mild physical or mental discomfort. They assure you that they’re only consulting the experts out of concern for “certain vulnerable groups” (bipolar anorexic transgender Latinx midgets with chapped lips, presumably) who might try the program, but in reality, the idea is to throw a wet blanket on anyone’s endeavors to cultivate a worldview grounded in discipline and strength.

The 75 Hard program isn’t asking you to go BASE jumping, to quit your job, or to “open” your marriage (but rest assured, if you’re stupid enough to do that last one, you can at least count on the Newspaper of Record to do a glowing write-up on it). Nope, just drink a little more water, get some physical activity in, read a book, and don’t drink alcohol. Pretty low-stakes stuff, where the risk is basically just feeling a little sorry for yourself if you fail the challenge, and maybe a bit sore. Presumably, if someone has a serious medical condition, that factor should already be baked into his analysis of any given lifestyle change. Does he really need a Times article to tell him that he might need to consult his physician before trying something new? Most people don’t fall into this category, so the latest workout trend is not going to do them any harm — they don’t need to consult the experts to learn that.

The Times piece is symptomatic of a spirit-sapping sickness of our society: paralysis by analysis. Your dear author is guilty of it too, I must confess. What is paralysis by analysis? Just scan Reddit, and check out page after page of threads with titles like:

• “What will happen if I do 100 push-ups every day for 100 days?”

• “Should I start a Substack to share personal anecdotes and humorous geopolitical analysis?”

• “Is it safe to eat raw eggs every day?”

• “Should I keep writing Substack poasts even though my mom is my sole paid subscriber?!”

• “Should I buy Bitcoin?”

Now, I’m not saying never to do research. What I am saying is that for some things, especially when the stakes are so low, often the best thing to do is simply to rush into the fray and see for yourself. In the words of Napoleon (or Yakov Kulnev? Lenin, maybe?): “On s'engage et puis… on voit.” Translation: “First show up… then see what happens.”

At a certain point, you need to be willing to get your hands dirty, do the damn thing, and learn from your failures and successes. I think a good bit of this tendency to seek others to approve your course of action, whether it be advice on finances, working out, career paths, etc., comes from a desire to outsource responsibility. You need an expert to tell you that this workout is the one. His stamp of approval absolves you of owning your decision. If things don’t work out, not your fault — the expert steered you wrong! This is no way to live.

When Dr. Donald Unger was a lad, his mother and aunts constantly scolded him for cracking his knuckles, warning him that it would cause arthritis. Instead of asking the nerds at Reddit for some statistically significant data on the matter, quibbling and quarreling about chi-squared tests and p-values and regression analyses, Unger just experimented on himself. The cheeky prick spent the next 60 years of his life only cracking the knuckles on his left hand, at least twice a day. His efforts resulted in a published paper in which Unger refuted the old wives’ tale — there was no discernible difference in performance or appearance between his left and right hands. Show up… then see what happens!

If you’re the type that feels compelled to consult the experts at Reddit or the New York Times before giving up alcohol or working out for 75 days, you probably need some more of this Napoleonic spirit in your life. Most of us cannot be a tactical genius manlet emperor and put cities to sword and fire, but we can at least take fate into our own two hands. In a world of milquetoast mugwumps, be a Donald Unger.

Today, people compulsively fret over every decision, no matter how small. The deluge of useless academic research continues to increase in proportion to the number of PhDs getting churned out. We chase optimization and let life pass us by as we wait for the latest study to bless the newest endeavor we’ve been contemplating. You can dither and dally, and hem and haw, but sooner or later, you simply need to show up and see what happens.