Principles
I think clearly when I separate three questions: what matters, what’s true, and what I’m willing to do about it. I think most of the friction in my personal and professional life comes from confusing these questions and assuming their answers are clearer than they are.
First: Values set direction. Evidence sets method.
“Should we?” is a question about values. More data cannot answer it.
“Can we?” is a question about what can be done. Experiments, measurement, and repeated attempts can answer it — slowly and imperfectly.
So I try to answer each question in the right way:
- Route "should" upward (to values, identity, responsibility).
- Route "can" downward (to practice, prototypes, tests, and feedback).
From there: Capabilities are discovered, not declared.
I don't trust self-images—mine or anyone else's.
"I can do X" is a scientific claim: it becomes real through repeated attempts under stated conditions, with honest accounting of failures.
Constraints matter, and failure teaches. But I try to focus on building capability: expanding what I can reliably do, rather than only reducing what I avoid.
Then: Codify what works.
When something proves true repeatedly, I turn it:
- into a principle when it requires judgment,
- into a system when it can be made deterministic, following fixed rules.
This makes knowledge useful in practice: fewer decisions require fresh willpower each time.
But always: Protect what matters from what's measurable.
Metrics are useful, but they're not neutral.
What’s visible tends to become “real,” and what’s “real” tends to govern our decisions. I try to keep slow commitments that cannot be measured — care, integrity, meaning — from being displaced by fast-moving measures that stand in for them.
Therefore: Earn autonomy. Don't gamble for it.
More freedom should come from demonstrated capability and tighter feedback loops, rather than from pretending risk is virtue.
A Sikh triad for knowledge creation
I connect three practices from Sikh tradition with how we create knowledge:
Naam Japna — humility (honesty about what we know)
Humility is the beginning of science.
It's the stance that says: I might be wrong; reality gets a vote; my model is not the world.
Practically: keep a log, look for disconfirming evidence, update without drama.
Kirat Karna — hard work (experimentation)
Knowledge is built, not wished into existence.
Hard work means running the trials: building prototypes, practicing, repeating attempts, and measuring results.
Practically: choose a method, do the work, repeat until the signal is real.
Vandh Chakna — sharing (letting others test and use the result)
A result that can't be shared isn't stable knowledge—it's personal luck.
Sharing makes claims available to others, who can test them, extend them, and build on them.
Practically: publish what you made, teach the method, share the credit.
humility → experiment → share → collective capability.
Science, at its best, uses discovery to expand what we can reliably do together.
Continue
These principles inform the work I do with organizations and the writing I publish.