In this piece
When a decision stalls, my mind tends to reach for the same explanation: I need more discipline. Make a better plan. Work harder. Stop hesitating.
But what if discipline is not the problem?
After reading The Code of the Extraordinary Mind by Vishen Lakhiani, I kept returning to three of its ideas: Brules, Models of Reality, and Law 6, Bend Reality. Together, they gave me a better way to diagnose a stuck decision before trying to force my way through it.
The Rules I Never Chose
Lakhiani calls them Brules, short for bullshit rules: assumptions we inherit and follow without deciding whether they deserve our obedience.
A serious career should follow a straight line. You should wait until you are ready before showing your work. Changing your mind proves that you lack commitment.
These statements can sound like facts because families, schools, companies, and social groups repeat them. They are often expectations tied to a particular environment and moment. Once I see that distinction, an “I should” becomes something I can examine instead of an instruction I must follow.
Some rules survive the examination. They protect someone, make collaboration possible, or reflect a real constraint. Others survive through habit and the fear of disappointing people.
The first question I now have is:
Is this a real constraint, or a convention I never thought to challenge?
That question creates room to choose. It does not tell me to reject every rule. It asks me to find out which kind of rule I am dealing with.
The Beliefs Beneath the System
Questioning an external rule only gets me part of the way. I can stop believing that every career must follow a straight line and still feel that changing direction would make me a failure.
Lakhiani’s distinction between Life Systems and Models of Reality helps here. Life Systems are the software: methods, routines, and habits. Models of Reality are the deeper beliefs on which those systems run. They define what I consider possible, normal, or deserved.
Suppose I reserve time to write but believe my work has no value until I declare it perfect. The calendar improves. The belief does not. I will still find reasons not to publish.
My usual response is to optimize the system again: find a new app, change the schedule, build a stricter routine. None of those changes reach the belief producing the behaviour.
The second question goes one layer deeper:
What must I believe for this reaction to make sense?
The answer could be “I am not good enough to start,” “worthwhile work must feel difficult,” or “slowing down means falling behind.” Naming the belief does not prove it false, but it lets me test it.
I do not replace it with an affirmation I cannot trust. I look for a more accurate hypothesis and an action that can test it. “I must be ready before I publish” can become “I improve by publishing honest work and listening to the response.”
Without changing the belief, a better process only optimizes the wrong goal.
The Ambition Trap
Rules and beliefs explain some friction. The third idea handles what happens when the goal itself begins to diminish the present.
Law 6 calls the alternative Bend Reality. The name sounds mystical, but the model describes a practical balance between two ways of relating to time:
- finding satisfaction in the present;
- holding a strong enough vision to give the future direction.
Together, they create four situations:
| Weak vision for the future | Strong vision for the future | |
|---|---|---|
| Happy in the present | Comfort, with a risk of stagnation | Bending reality |
| Unhappy in the present | Negative spiral | Ambition powered by stress and anxiety |
The bottom-right quadrant can look like success from the outside. There is movement, ambition, and another milestone ahead. Happiness stays conditional: after this project, this promotion, this result.
The opposite trap feels gentler. The present is comfortable, but no vision asks anything new of it.
Bending reality occupies the top-right cell: present happiness supplies energy for the work, while an ambitious vision gives it direction. I can care about an outcome without asking it to rescue my life now.
The third question is:
Is this vision giving my life direction, or making me postpone it?
A Three-Question Check
The three concepts became more useful when I stopped treating them as separate chapters. Brules expose rules inherited from outside. Models of Reality show how those rules can settle into beliefs. Bending reality tests the way I move toward what comes next.
Before pushing harder, I check whether the friction comes from the rule, the belief beneath it, or the way the goal relates to the present.
When a decision feels heavier than it needs to, I write down the sentence containing “I should,” “I have to,” or “I’ll be happy when.” Then I ask:
- What is the rule? Is it a real constraint or an inherited convention?
- What is the belief? What must I believe for my reaction to make sense?
- What is the relationship to the future? Does the goal direct the present or diminish it?
I choose one small test from the answers: question one rule in a conversation, publish one imperfect piece of work, or keep the goal while making time today for something I had postponed until after it.
Understanding the source of the friction tells me where effort can help and where it would only hide the problem.
Filed under
Explore this subject