Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Jack Conte distrusts decisions framed as a simple 'path A or path B' choice. He finds that more often than not, the correct resolution isn't choosing one path, but rather discovering a bespoke set of action items that solve the underlying problem the binary choice was attempting to address.

Related Insights

When teams present a binary choice (A or B), it's often an 'illusion of choice' designed to simplify their work. Parker Conrad's default reaction is to reject the premise and insist on finding a way to do both, forcing the team to find a third path or discover that the perceived constraints weren't real.

Innovation flourishes when teams learn to hold opposing values in tension (e.g., risk vs. safety) rather than trying to resolve them into a single choice. Framing complex issues as paradoxes to manage unlocks creativity, whereas an 'either/or' approach stifles it.

Most people make poor decisions because they are trapped by emotions and view the world in simple binaries. A better approach is to map a situation's full complexity, understand its trade-offs, and recognize where others are getting stuck in their feelings, thus avoiding those same traps.

While no single path guarantees startup success, the phrase "there's no one right answer" is dangerous. It implies all approaches are equally valid, leading founders to choose easy methods over proven, difficult ones. In reality, only a handful of paths are viable, while the vast majority ensure failure.

When facing a tough choice, people often frame it as "do X or not." A better framework is to define the specific, concrete alternative (e.g., "send kid to daycare or hire a nanny" vs. "or quit my job"). This clarifies the true trade-offs involved.

The most paralyzing decisions for a leader aren't clear-cut choices but dilemmas where every path is painful. Ben Horowitz's decision to take his company public with minimal revenue was a bad idea, but the alternative—bankruptcy—was worse. The key skill is choosing the 'slightly better' path in the abyss, despite the guaranteed negative feedback.

Binary thinking traps us in predictable failure patterns. We either over-focus on one side (intensification), swing violently to the opposite extreme (overcorrection), or dig into opposing camps (polarization). Recognizing these specific cycles is the first step to breaking them and finding more creative solutions.

Patreon's co-founder reflects that early-stage leadership requires gathering diverse opinions. However, as the business and founder mature, it's crucial to shift from operating by consensus to using one's own internal conviction as the North Star for decision-making.

Binary (A-B) choices lead to bad decisions over half the time. To generate better options, create three distinct five-year 'Odyssey Plans': 1) your current path succeeding, 2) a backup if that path vanishes, and 3) a 'wild card' plan free from financial or social constraints. The goal is imagination, not selection.

Paradoxically, embracing “both/and” doesn't mean abandoning binary choices. The most effective strategy involves making a series of clear, short-term “either/or” decisions (e.g., focus on work today, family tomorrow) that, in aggregate, serve a larger, long-term “both/and” balance over time.

Patreon CEO Finds Most Binary Decisions Are a Trap; The Real Solution Is Often a Mix of Actions | RiffOn