Jeroen Sangers logo Jeroen Sangers

Structure is cheaper than intelligence

Ask a language model something about your own life and it has to guess. It never saw your data, so it reconstructs what is probably true, and every so often it hands you something that never happened. No amount of clever phrasing fixes that. Guessing is what generation is.

A well structured knowledge base works the other way around. It looks things up and gives back what is there, with the source attached and with how certain that source is.

Underneath sits a ratio worth remembering: roughly 98 percent of a “Digital assistant” system is data, 2 percent is AI. And that 2 percent does translation, not thinking. It understands that “called Joe about the fieldlab” is a phone call, that Joe is a person and that fieldlab is a project. Nothing more is asked of it.

Every layer of structure you add makes the AI layer thinner.

What looks like intelligence usually turns out to be retrieval. Who should I call is a sort on contact strength and time. This pattern stands out is a count. What did I do last time is a lookup in history. Query, weigh, show. A simple search over a clean schema beats a brilliant model over messy data.

That reframes where the work goes. The interesting question stops being which model you use and becomes how well your own material is organised. Naming things consistently, linking them, recording the type of a thing rather than leaving it as loose text: each of those shifts work out of the model and into the schema, where it stays put and costs nothing to run.

You still need a large model while the schema is being discovered. That is the architect designing the house: which tables relate to which, where the structure has gaps, which patterns hold. Once the house stands, you can live in it without the architect. What remains is small enough to run on your own laptop, no cloud and no dependency on a vendor who might change the terms next year.

So the useful measure of a personal system is not how smart its assistant is. It is how much of your life the assistant can simply look up. Every time you tidy a corner of that, you need slightly less intelligence to make sense of it.

Time management training leaves volition alone

Time management training is popular. The evidence that it works is thin.

The critique that landed hardest for me: these trainings teach planning and structuring, and they leave volition alone. Volition is the capacity to protect an intention against everything competing with it. Distraction, a colleague at your desk, the pull of an easier task.

Planning and structuring your activities may simply not be enough to keep an intention alive once the day starts pushing back.

Kuhl and Fuhrmann pointed at what is missing: strategies that work on motivation rather than structure. Finding meaning in a task. Making it more attractive to start. Deciding in advance what you do when the pull arrives.

That reframes what a good system is for. Not a better container for your work, but something that keeps you willing to do the work you already decided mattered. Structure gets you to the desk. Something else keeps you there.

The top use cases for AI in 2026 are:

  1. Therapy and companionship
  2. Troubleshooting
  3. Fun and nonsense
  4. Fan fiction and storytelling
  5. Technical use of software
  6. Autonomous agentic operations
  7. Relationship advice
  8. Work buddy
  9. Astrology and tarot readings
  10. General advice

My use cases are 6, 5, 2, 10, and a little bit of 8. Might need to look into Astrology and tarot readings though, as it seems a natural fit for AI’s hallucinations. 🤪

Implementation intentions correct the planning fallacy

A to-do says what. An implementation intention says when, where and how.

“Write the proposal” is a task. “I write the proposal tomorrow at nine, at the kitchen table, before I open my mail” is an implementation intention. Gollwitzer named them in 1999, and the difference turns out to matter more than it looks.

Koole and van ’t Spijker found that people who wrote their plans this way completed more of them and were interrupted less often.

They also help with the planning fallacy: our habit of estimating how long something takes by imagining it going well. No traffic, no interruptions, no discovering halfway through that the file is somewhere else. Specifying the circumstances forces the obstacles into view before you commit to a time.

It costs about ten extra words per task. That is a cheap correction for a bias that has been wrecking estimates for as long as anyone has been making them.

Unplanned tasks get finished more often than planned ones

More from the same diary study. When the researchers looked at what people actually completed, unplanned tasks won.

Tasks that showed up during the day were rated as more urgent and more important than the ones people had planned in advance. And they were completed at a higher rate.

Recency bias and time discounting explain most of it. Something standing in front of you right now weighs more than something you decided was important last Thursday.

This undermines an assumption sitting under most productivity advice: that writing your priorities down protects them. It does not. Your plan gives you direction and an overview, and both are worth having. What it cannot do is win an argument with whatever just walked into your inbox.

Which means the plan needs something next to it. A protected block, a closed door, a rule about what you do before you open your mail. The list alone was never going to be enough.

Blind spots need someone else's eyes

Your brain filters everything through what you already believe. That is not a flaw, it is how perception works: experience and culture decide what registers and what slides past. The consequence is uncomfortable. Whatever sits outside your lens stays outside it, however honest you are with yourself and however long you sit with your journal.

We tend to treat blind spots as faults. Weaknesses to fix. In practice they are usually the opposite: strengths you never counted as strengths, patterns you have repeated for years, assumptions so obvious you never thought to question them. Opportunities in plain sight, invisible from where you stand.

This is the ceiling of solo reflection. You keep looking from the same position. Someone outside that position sees the shape of it. A coach, a colleague, a mentor. The reason is simple: they stand outside your lens.

It also says what coaching actually is, beyond the image of an expert handing out advice. A good coach tells you very little. They help you see what is already there and stays invisible from your own vantage point. The material is yours. The angle comes from somebody else.

And the moment you see it, something shifts. You stop reacting to your patterns and start deciding with them in view.

Urgency, not importance, decides what gets done

A diary study followed 29 research and development engineers through their working days. The finding that stuck with me: urgency predicted task completion far better than importance did.

Tasks that were both urgent and important got finished most often. Tasks that were only important, with no deadline pressing on them, were finished least often.

The statistics get stranger. On its own, importance had no relationship with completion at all. Once the researchers accounted for urgency, importance turned negative. Less important tasks were the ones that got done.

This explains a paradox I see in almost every effectiveness conversation. People end the day having handled everything that shouted at them, while the work that would actually move something forward sits untouched. It is not a character flaw. It is what happens when urgency is the only signal your day responds to.

So the question is not how to work harder on what matters. It is how to give importance a voice loud enough to compete.

The cheapest acquisition channel is the one you should start with

A services business wants to double its revenue, so it hires an agency to run paid ads. Six months and forty thousand euros later, it has twelve leads and one customer. Nothing was wrong with the ads. The order was wrong.

There are four ways to bring in customers. Inbound, where people find you through content, search and reputation. Outbound, where you go to them with cold email and calls. Paid, where you buy attention. And referrals, where your existing customers bring you the next one. Each asks something different from you before it returns anything: volume, margin, patience, or a base of happy clients.

Paid asks for the most. You are bidding against everyone else in your market, you need the margin to absorb a losing test, and you need enough traffic to know which test lost. Miss one of those three and the budget just leaves. Inbound asks for time instead, six to twelve months before it carries anything, after which the leads keep arriving without a price tag on each one.

Referrals ask for almost nothing you do not already have. That makes the order obvious once you see it. Start where you are already strong, build the channel that compounds, and only buy attention when you have the volume and the margin to survive being wrong about it.

The glass is already broken, and that is why I enjoy it

Fear of loss rarely comes from the loss itself. It comes from a quiet assumption underneath it: that the thing will stay. Give up that assumption first, book the thing as already gone, and there is nothing left to defend. What remains is what is in front of you.

Ajahn Chah made this concrete with a glass. He drank from it, enjoyed how it caught the light, and considered it already broken. So when the wind knocked it over, his answer was “of course”. The breaking was priced in from the start, which made every moment with the glass a gain rather than a postponement.

The Stoics arrived at the same place from another direction. Premeditatio malorum, and Seneca treating everything he owned as on loan.

Two things this is easy to mistake for. It reads like pessimism, until you notice the conclusion is presence: you still drink from the glass. It reads like permission to be careless, until you notice you still keep the glass away from the edge of the table.

That is the boundary. It works for impermanence, and it stops working for negligence. Where you actually have influence, “already lost” quietly becomes a way to write off responsibility.

The meeting ends the moment you share your screen

Something happens the moment someone shares their screen to walk through a presentation. Their face disappears. The other participants turn into an audience. The content plays out in a straight line instead of being worked through together.

From that point on the meeting is over as a conversation. What is left is a recording with witnesses.

Reading and interacting are two different activities, and they work badly at the same time. A video call is built for the second one: a small group, live, thinking out loud. If what you have is material to be read, send it up front as a memo or a short video. Then the meeting itself stays reserved for the part that genuinely needs everyone present.

Calling a meeting is a responsibility. You earn people’s attention by arriving prepared and by having the right people in the room. Slides on the screen are often how that preparation gets skipped: the deck carries the meeting so nobody else has to.

The test is simple. If your presentation survives being sent as a document, send it as a document.