I am still very much on a hiatus from public writing, but this was such an interesting line of thought that I wanted to share it and see what you all think.
Here’s a nugget you might find interesting: give two equally capable, equally resourceful people the same situation, and they'll often produce different outcomes. Not just different results; I mean different categories of results entirely.
Take something simple: getting a personal project done. One person thinks about what work they need to do. Then they look at what sort of budget they have right now, and what tools they already have at their disposal, then settle on an iPad. From there, they’ll look at what models fall in that range, and filter those based on friends’ recommendations, price and other factors. If they find something that checks all the boxes, they make a purchase, and then they get the work done on the iPad.
The second person thinks about the outcome they want to see in the world. From there, they might mention it casually to their manager who says “oh, an iPad might help with that, we have some extras we’ve been meaning to get rid of in the supply room”. Or they might choose an entirely different tool, or ask GenAI, or realise that what they actually need isn't technology at all, and ask a friend in Philly to hand-make components instead. Same starting situation, same desired outcome, but somehow completely different paths to getting there.
I used to think this was about confidence, or knowing the right people, or some other special ability I don't have words for. And sure, those things probably matter. But I also think there's something both simpler and more fundamental underneath it all.
The difference isn't in what they do, it's in where they start thinking.
Some people start from the reality layer, working forward and asking “what can I do next given this environment and constraints?” Others start from the aspiration layer and work backward, asking "what do I want to exist and how can I make that possible?"
At first glance, these might seem like minor variations in planning style. But the more I observe people who consistently create remarkable outcomes, the more I realise these represent entirely different ways of relating to possibility itself.
The fascinating thing is that both approaches work with the same basic elements: current reality and desired outcomes. But the starting point completely changes the process of getting from one to the other.
Reality-first thinkers start from where they are. They assess their current situation, figure out the constraints and resources available, and then figure out reasonable next steps, which eventually shapes the final outcome. They're working within the system as it presents itself to them, and optimising for the best outcome given what they see and experience around them.
Reality-first thinking follows logical paths, makes reasonable changes, and works within limits (however wide that net is cast). It asks: "Given what I can see and access right now, what's the sensible path forward?"
This approach has real virtues. It's methodical, it respects existing setups, it builds incrementally on what already exists. I think people who think this way tend to be excellent at seeing practical obstacles others miss and working within somewhat immobile systems.
Aspiration-first thinkers, on the other hand, approach the same situations with what seems like a completely different operating system. They ask, “Given what I want to exist in this world, what would need to be true to make that possible?” Then they work backward from there to figure out how to make that the new reality. Aspiration shapes reality, and not the other way around.
What strikes me about aspiration-first thinking is how it bypasses the mental constraints that reality-first thinking can create. These people aren't being unrealistic, necessarily. They're just not letting current circumstances dictate the boundaries of what they'll consider.
That’s one thing reality-first thinkers tend to miss out on: the very act of starting from current reality shapes what we can imagine as possible. When you start with a container—a specific tool, constraint, framework, or approach—you become bound by its limitations. If the iPad doesn't quite fit your specific project needs after all, you're stuck optimising within its constraints or starting over from scratch, hunting for another way to achieve it.
From what I’ve seen, when you start with the outcome and work backward, your solution becomes water, taking whatever shape that will make you most likely to achieve that outcome. An iPad, a different tool, a collaboration, a completely different approach: they're all equally valid as long as they serve the desired result.
The key is not to focus on what the solution should be, but what effect the solution creates in the world. I think we look at these things as a binary: problem, meet solution. But really, there’s a third step: problem → solution → effect. ANd when you start from the effect and work backward, suddenly all the walls collapse and you have near-infinite potential routes to choose from to turn it into reality.
Of course, there's something super vulnerable about working backward from what you want to exist. It requires believing that your judgment about what matters is worth honouring, even when you can't yet explain how you'll make it happen. It's easier to start from current reality because it feels more modest, more realistic. You're not asking for too much. You're not making anyone uncomfortable with your intensity. You're not putting yourself in a position where you might fail dramatically.
I’ll emphasise that this isn't about being reckless versus careful. It's about fundamentally different assumptions about what's fixed and what's flexible in any given situation. It's about which direction you face when you start thinking about setting anything in motion.
When you start from current reality, you inherit all the existing assumptions about "how things work." You see the established processes and think "this is the way." You encounter obstacles and think "these are the constraints I need to work within."
When you start from what you want to exist, you naturally ask "wait, why does it have to be done this way?" People who work backward from their aspirations have a natural immunity to these inherited scripts. They're not trying to break rules; they're often not even seeing them as influential on their goal.
At first, it seems like there are countless different ways people approach bringing ideas to life. Some test things rapidly, others build consensus, some wait for the right moment, others create elaborate plans. But when you look at the underlying structure, all of these approaches boil down to the same fundamental choice.
To be honest, I don't know if either approach is inherently better. They're tools, and like any tools, they're suited to different situations. But recognising them—and what you’re inclined towards—helps expand what you can imagine for yourself. The cognitive starting point can shape everything that follows.
So these days, when I want to do something hard, I’ve been trying the aspiration-first way. I like to start by describing the absolute best case scenario in as much detail as possible. What would it mean for this problem to be solved, or this project to be complete? What does the world look like when that happens? How will I know when I've gotten there? Only then do I let myself put pen to paper and draft solutions.
Reality is more malleable than we usually allow ourselves to believe. The space between what is and what could be is where all interesting change happens. The only question is which end you choose to start from.
If you’re curious about how this might transfer to the context of identity:
If you've been thinking about taking something seriously enough:
If you’re curious about how to choose between opportunities:
This piece emerged from a fascinating conversation with Vishwanath of
(which you should definitely check out) about the different ways people we know tend to approach anything they’re trying to set into motion.
I love this line of thought. A refreshing take to say aspiration-first instead of casual "manifesting" devoid of action which seems to be the norm these days.
wildly fascinating thought, thank you for sharing!