This is by far the simplest yet best lens i found that explains consistency and why most people struggle to stick with habits or new behaviors. it's called Requisite variety, it is a concept in cybernetics. Leo gave his insights on this concept in the context of creativity here: https://www.actualized.org/insights/requisite-variety-and-creative-laziness
Before i dive into this, i first need to explain and list some definitions: (this might sound nerdy or technical but trust me, it's actually simple and straight forward at the end, you can even explain it to a child)
Variety: the total number of distinct states a system can be in. A light switch has variety of 2. Your life circumstances have variety of thousands of possible states.
Regulator: the system doing the controlling. Its job is to keep some goal variable stable despite disturbances. You are the regulator when you're trying to maintain consistent work output. A thermostat is the regulator when it's maintaining room temperature.
Requisite Variety: the minimum amount of variety a regulator must have to successfully control a system. "Requisite" means required, not optional. It's the threshold below which control is structurally impossible.
Disturbance System: everything in the environment that can push the goal variable out of its desired state. Life circumstances, market changes, algorithm updates, fatigue, unexpected obligations. It doesn't have to be hostile, it just has to introduce states your regulator hasn't mapped.
Law of Requisite Variety: the variety of the regulator must be greater than or equal to the variety of the disturbance system for control to be maintained. Compressed into a phrase: only variety can absorb variety. If the environment can be in more states than you have responses for, the environment wins. Not sometimes, always, eventually, structurally.
Okay, let's get to the explaining.
Let's start with the mistake that most people make: Trying to control the variety of the 'the disturbance system' instead of increasing their own variety. Instead of having more responses to every state the system can generate.
Example:
You want to build a new habit, you try to do it exactly for 10 minutes, in a certain fixed time, everyday. you try to hold on to your routine, try to be consistent, cut distractions, design and optimize you environment, and use willpower when things change (you get tired, you lose motivation, some circumstances, schedule change, life happens...)
All of that works, until it doesn't eventually, because sooner or later life will be in more states than responses you have for each state. what happens when you can't have the same routine anymore? what happens when you have some sudden emergency? what happens when you travel or change environment? what happens when random stuff happen where you can't do your habit in the same time and same environment? what happens when you run out of willpower? or when you get resistance? what happens when you don't feel like it or in a bad mood? what happens when you spend some couple miserable days? what happens when you run out of mental energy or are busy and burnt out? or when random life stuff create more friction? what happens when some unexpected social events take your time and energy? what happens when you can't run out of excuses that you tell yourself?
see, trying to control the variety of the system you're trying to control always won't work.
You need to stop asking "how do I protect the conditions that let me be consistent" and start asking "how many distinct situations can I find myself in, and do I have a version of this habit for each one?" you should have a system/habit for standard predictable conditions, normal routine, normal life, ideal conditions. then have a version of that system for each state you find yourself in/you find your environment in, A version for when you fee tired, a version for emergency, a version for when life throws at you whatever the fuck. A version for when you go through psychological stuff....
You basically should map every possible state that the system you want to control and have at least one response.
That's why the corporate world and school succeed at this, whatever the fuck is happening, you have to come to school or to work, until you physically can't show up or have an extreme emergency, you show up no matter what. (but in a toxic way sometimes, you shouldn't get inspiration for these 2)
Also, another distinction has to be made: Willpower vs Requisite variety.
Willpower is a fuel model. You have a tank, you spend from it, it depletes, you fail. The implication is that success is about having more fuel or burning less of it.
Requisite variety is a map model. You either have a response mapped to the current situation or you don't. Fuel is irrelevant if the road you're on doesn't exist in your map.
The critical difference: willpower assumes the variable is inside you, your energy, your character, your resolve. Requisite variety puts the variable in the relationship between you and the environment. It's not about what you have inside, it's about whether your internal response set covers the external state you're currently in.
So when you break a habit because you're tired and traveling, willpower model says "you didn't want it enough." Requisite variety model says "you never built a tired-and-traveling response. Of course you defaulted, there was nothing to execute."
_______________________________________
Chess example:
Player with low variety: Only knows and memorized a few specific moves. Only works when conditions are familiar. Something unexpected happens. He's lost. He starts guessing and improvising.
Player with high variety: Understands the game deeply. He Internalized principles, not just sequences and moves. Covered regardless of position. Novel position arrives. Still has a move, a response.
