The Intellectualisation Trap
When thinking becomes a sophisticated form of procrastination
Something clicked recently, and it wasn’t flattering.
I’d been deep in a content workflow for months. The output quality was genuinely good. We’d validated it, iterated, refined until we were actually happy with what it produced. And yet somewhere between “this works” and “someone else can use this,” we’d managed to pile on layers of complexity that had nothing to do with getting the core thing into anyone’s hands.
A distillation engine. An engagement system. A meme-driven side project that was, I’ll admit, very funny and potentially viral. Each addition felt productive. Each one scratched an intellectual itch. And each one was, if I’m being honest, a more sophisticated way of not doing the uncomfortable thing: putting something imperfect in front of real people.
Then I noticed a competitor. A woman in her sixties, no deep technical background, running a system that was, by any objective measure, worse than what we had. She’d already got 40 users. She was iterating on real feedback. She’d just hooked up video script generation. People were using it and enjoying it.
And there I was, thinking: “But ours is better.”
Which is, of course, the most useless thought in the world.
When Complexity Feels Like Progress
There’s a specific point of failure that hits curious, intellectually engaged people harder than anyone else. It looks like this: you get close to something that works, and instead of releasing it, you spot three more interesting problems adjacent to the core one. Those problems are genuinely fascinating. Solving them would genuinely improve the thing. And exploring them feels exactly like progress.
It isn’t.
What it actually is, when you strip away the rationalisation, is a preference for the comfortable work of thinking over the uncomfortable work of exposing your thing to reality. I’ve caught myself doing this repeatedly: reaching for complexity because complexity is interesting, and interesting feels productive even when it’s not.
The giveaway is when you find yourself saying “but we also need...” about features that didn’t exist in your original plan. Every “but we also need” is worth interrogating. Sometimes it’s genuine scope discovery. More often it’s scope creep dressed up as insight.
Entertainment Disguised as Strategy
One of the more uncomfortable realisations was that some of what we’d been spending time on wasn’t strategy at all. It was entertainment.
We’d spent weeks on a side project that was funny, culturally relevant, and potentially viral. We could rationalise it as a growth tactic, a way to build audience, a way to generate the kind of attention that feeds back into the main work. And some of that rationalisation was probably even true.
But if I’m being serious: it was a distraction. A novelty. Entertainment dressed up in strategic clothing. And the reason it was so seductive is that it was more fun than the tedious, unsexy work of packaging up something that already works and getting it in front of people who might actually use it.
I think there’s a useful distinction between things that feel entrepreneurial and things that are entrepreneurial. Debating architecture, exploring adjacent problems, spinning up entertaining side projects: all of it feels like building something. But none of it is the same as having a real person use your thing and tell you what’s wrong with it. That’s where value actually gets created, and it’s also where ego gets bruised.
The Bubble
Here’s what I said out loud, and it stung to hear myself say it: there’s a high risk that we’re in our own little bubble, having loads of fun, finding it really interesting, and creating a lot of what we imagine is value. But really it might just be over-intellectualising things. Which we have a habit of doing.
That’s the trap in a sentence. You can be simultaneously doing genuinely interesting work and completely wasting your time. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. You can have brilliant insights about your problem domain, elegant solutions to technical challenges, a deep understanding of the competitive landscape, and still have zero users.
The woman with the worse system and 40 users isn’t winning because she’s smarter. She’s winning because she’s got a higher tolerance for imperfection. She shipped something that wasn’t ready, and now she’s iterating on real signal instead of imagined signal. Meanwhile, the team with the “superior” system is still debating architecture in a room where the only feedback loop is their own enthusiasm.
What Optionality Actually Requires
A friend of mine recently started her first business, and the advice I gave her was exactly what I wasn’t following myself: just get to the point where the rubber hits the road and stop messing about.
It’s embarrassing how much easier it is to see this pattern in other people. The advice is obvious when you’re not the one caught in the loop. Get something out. Let people use it. See what they actually want versus what you think they want. This is entrepreneurship 101, and I was failing at it while being perfectly capable of articulating why it matters.
The thing about getting an MVP into people’s hands isn’t just that it validates your assumptions. It creates optionality. Real conversations start happening. Routes to users, investment, partnerships: none of these materialise from a system that exists only in your development environment, no matter how good it is. They come from something tangible that people can react to.
If you’ve got a validated value proposition that real people have actually touched, then all the interesting complexity you’ve been exploring becomes impressive depth rather than impressive distraction. “We’ve also been investigating X, Y, and Z” lands differently when it follows “and here’s the thing that 50 people are already using.” Without that anchor, the complexity is just complexity.
The Honest Reframe
I don’t think intellectual curiosity is the enemy. It’s one of the most valuable traits you can have, and it’s what makes the work interesting enough to keep doing, in fact - for me it’s what makes life worth living! The issue isn’t the thinking. It’s not noticing when the thinking has become a substitute for real progress.
The test I’ve started applying: am I adding this because it makes the thing better for the person who’ll use it, or because it’s interesting to me? If the answer is the second one, it goes on a list for later. Not killed, just deferred. The interesting problems will still be there after someone’s actually used the boring version.
The woman with 40 users taught me something I already knew but hadn’t internalised: a worse thing that exists in the world beats a better thing that exists in your head. Every time. No exceptions. And the longer you spend making the thing in your head more sophisticated, the wider that gap gets.
That’s not a comfortable thought for someone who genuinely enjoys the sophistication. But comfort, I’m realising, might be exactly the problem.
If this piece added something to your week, please consider subscribing :)