What is better, setting goals you think you will hit or setting ambitious goals you think you _won't hit_ without some stimulation? I'm not sure yet. Smaller, more manageable goals have the advantage of completing them more often. If you're motivated by the completion of a goal (and who isn't) then you get more of that with smaller goals. Of course the sense of accomplishment may scale with goal size, and may not be linear. Larger goals have the advantage of pushing you further towards greatness, probably. I think there's some balance to be had here. If the goal or its deadline is too outlandish then it may be subconsciuosly ignored as simply infeasible. The timeline is the problem. I think most goals are acheivable given enough time. Learn a new language in a week? No way. In 5 years? Sure, no prob. That's not to say you can't make good progress in short periods of time, but if your timeline is _too_ aggressive then it may be counter productive. That's the rub though, what is "too" aggressive? How do you know? If you want some goals with deadlines that will challenge but not discourage yourself, then where is the balance? # I don't have a good answer This week i decided to pull back my goal of creating 2 youtube videos a week to 1 video a week. I'm considering this an indefinite, temporary measure because 1 video a week will not get me to my goal of 100 videos for the year (see [[Goals 2025]]). It's worth noting that before the recent fall off I **was** hitting 2 videos a week for a month straight (8 videos), but it was a tight thing, with videos getting completed on Sunday or even Monday of the next week. So, I've decided to pull back a bit. The idea is that the additional time it gives me will give me more mental space and energy to refine the process. to do the meta learning that will help me create videos faster. Of course if it turns out that it now takes most of a week to complete just one video then that's information too, and I'll have to readjust.